John Duncan

[Customs Act, September 21st, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I will begin by saying that I consider the comments with references to goose stepping made by the member for Winnipeg Centre are a stain on the House. They should have been withdrawn and I regret that the member chose not to do so.

Bill S-23 is an act to amend the Customs Act and other related acts. The fact that we are even talking about the bill today is symptomatic of everything that is wrong with our government's priorities given the tragic events of September 11.

As I said last night, the government is behaving as if there is no crisis, no urgency and no need for critical action. There is every appearance that the government's posture is to defend the status quo on every front.

The events of September 11 have been taken seriously by other countries, but our government's priorities are clear. Given what we witnessed last night with the speech from George Bush and given the absence of our Prime Minister, I can only say that the message we as a country are continuing to send out is doing a great disservice to Canadians, to Canada's national interests and to the international community.

The bill is essentially unchanged from earlier bills that have been kicked around. It is based on the 1995 Canada-U.S. shared border accord. What we are doing with this legislation is unilateral action. We are being boy scouts. This will speed passage. It focuses on frequent users and it is a one way item for people going from the U.S. to Canada.

The timing is all wrong. It is wrong to approach this unilaterally. For example, yesterday I met with representatives from the Canadian Trucking Association. It clearly sees this bill in the very same way. We heard comments from the U.S. ambassador to Canada and from Colin Powell, the U.S. secretary of state. Canadians and Canadian industry in general know intrinsically that the real issue here is not what is represented by Bill S-23. The real issue here is anti-terrorism.

Earlier this week the government defeated an Alliance motion which was very simple and straightforward. I will repeat it for the benefit of Canadians because I think it is important that they understand what we were trying to accomplish and how reasonable it is given our current critical circumstances.

We called upon the government to introduce anti-terrorism legislation “similar in principle to the United Kingdom's Terrorism Act, 2000”. Let me add that there is also anti-terrorism legislation in the United States.

The legislation we are asking for would: name all known international terrorist organizations operating in Canada; call for a complete ban on fundraising activities in support of terrorism; and provide provisions for the seizure of assets belonging to terrorists or terrorist organizations. It would also call for the immediate ratification of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. Canada signed that convention years ago but it has never been ratified because the government has not brought it before the House.

The legislation would call also for the creation of specific crimes for engaging in terrorist training activities in Canada or inciting from Canada terrorist acts abroad. It calls for the prompt extradition of foreign nationals charged with acts of terrorism, even if the charges are capital offences, and the detention and deportation to their country of origin of any people illegally in Canada or failed refugee claimants who have been linked to terrorist organizations.

I doubt if we could find 10% of Canadians who would disagree with the contents of that motion, but the government closed ranks and defeated it. More troubling than that are the games that have been played since that time on another front in this place.

The Canadian Alliance asked for a list of officials to be summoned before committees. For example, for the justice committee, the solicitor general, the director of CSIS and the commissioner of the RCMP were asked to appear. For the foreign affairs committee the Minister of Foreign Affairs was asked to appear. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration was asked to appear at the citizenship and immigration committee. For the transport committee we asked for the minister and the president of Air Canada. We asked that the Minister of National Defence, the chief of defence staff and the chief of the Communications Security Establishment appear at the defence committee. For the revenue and customs committee we asked for the Minister of National Revenue and the head of Canada Customs and Revenue Agency to appear as witnesses.

That is a fairly comprehensive list of witnesses we asked to have come before committees. This would be considered perfectly reasonable, rational and responsible in most parliamentary and western democracies. Anything less would be considered or construed to be a dereliction.

What has happened since that time? At two of those committee meetings Liberals pulled out of the meetings one at a time until quorum could no longer be reached, to disallow the proceeding of those motions to have those people come before committee. The government is trying to deny this occurred but it did occur and it is simply unacceptable behaviour, particularly at a time when we should not be playing games. If there is one time when we want to empower our parliamentarians, it is at a time like this. Instead, the government is doing the complete opposite.This is such a stark contrast to what is happening in the U.S. congress, for example, where there is a coming together and a national will, not only in congress, which is showing leadership, but in the population as well.

If we held a mirror up to Canada, we would see that the direction the government has taken on this issue is reflected in divisions appearing in our population at large even though 81% of Canadians, according to very recent polling this week, are very supportive of complete support for the U.S. in terms of military engagement and other activities.

It is clear that the Canadian public is far and away much further ahead than the government on this whole issue. The Canadian public has been done a great disservice by the government's actions to date. We are at the end of week one of a parliamentary session following the tragedy of September 11 and we have yet to see clear direction from the government. We have yet to see our Prime Minister even set foot in Washington or New York.

I would like to quote U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell. I am not the first one to quote him in this place. As a matter of fact, I quoted him last night when we stayed in this place until midnight. Colin Powell said: “Some nations need to be more vigilant against terrorism at their borders if they want their relationship with the U.S. to remain the same. We are going to make it clear to them that this will be a standard against which they are measured with respect to their relationship with the United States”.

There are ties that bind us with the United States: family ties, business ties, historical ties, the fact that we have aided each other in times of war and in times of adversity. Given all of that, friendship has to be earned. I can certainly call America our best friend because it has earned and deserves that title. Right now Americans are questioning whether we deserve that title. It will be based on performance, not rhetoric and empty promises.

What is essential now is not what is in Bill S-23. I do not know what it signals other than the government has no important priority to achieving anything real in terms of what is required in order to address the current crisis that we are all in together in terms of anti-terrorism.

If we want to talk about a perimeter security strategy, some unilateral boy scout border crossing ideas are out of place in the current context in terms of timing and are not currently supported by Canadian industry because the timing is wrong. Canadian industry and everyone is calling for us to toughen up our perimeter security through an effective strategy. We have to work with our American colleagues on achieving that.

We must take a step back, look where we are headed on passage of people and goods between Canada and the U.S., and make some very essential changes.

There is no question that since NAFTA has come into effect, trade and passage of people has increased tremendously between the two countries. It has had a positive influence. I think the government has actually taken a lot of the beneficial effects for granted. As soon as we do that, we forget that there are responsibilities that go with all of that.

We have a huge industry that is potentially affected by the lack of a perimeter security strategy and that could lead to problems with delays at our border crossings. The government is not saying that we do not have U.S. government buy-in on the direction of the bill. It is not prepared to go there. It has not been prepared to go there even before September 11. Unless we are in lockstep with the U.S. on this, then it is the wrong thing to do. It is the wrong thing to do at this time anyway.

There is a dichotomy here. The primary function of customs border crossing officials under U.S. jurisdiction is enforcement. The primary function and the reporting mechanism for our officials is collection of revenue through duties and taxes. We have simply got it all wrong. Many, if not most, of our border crossing customs officials agree that they are in the wrong department. They should not be reporting to Canada Customs and Revenue Agency. They are finding more and more that their job is dealing with criminal code infractions, not taxes and tariffs. NAFTA did dispose of many of those. That is not to say that we still do not have some tariffs and taxes to collect, but that is no longer the primary function. If we have an anti-terrorism stance, that is obviously one area where we could change everything.

The U.S. has its well recorded continuing concerns about security risks emanating from Canadian jurisdiction. It is the opinion of many people who are looking at this whole border crossing issue from an academic perspective and it was clear even before the events of September 11 that there would have to be some major changes. We thought we had maybe a three or five year window to make those changes. I always got the feeling that the government thought maybe we had a five or a ten year window. The events of September 11 have telescoped that time. We no longer have the ability to look at the border crossing issue and perimeter security in that kind of time frame. We need a sense of urgency. It virtually has to be one of our prime considerations right now. It is a prime role of parliament and the government to do this. Instead there is silence from the government and it is business as usual. The bill makes no sense given the current context and the government is pretending it is business as usual.

We clearly need to ensure that it is as hard or harder for a terrorist to get into Canada than it is to go directly to the United States. Nothing less is acceptable. This will be good for the security and safety of Canadians and the security and safety of our neighbours. It will be positive for international trade and it will be positive in every other fashion as well. That is where we must go. We must do it with urgency.

[Privilege, September 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify that if that is the case I obviously withdraw it. I think the important point is we know where he was not and where he was is another question.

[United States of America, September 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, last night George Bush gave what may be the most important speech of our lifetime. He did not include Canada in his list of countries that are friends. Meanwhile our Prime Minister's priorities are clear. Last night he went to a Liberal fundraiser in Toronto while Tony Blair was at the U.S. congress with his unequivocal support.

Ten days after the terrorist attacks our Prime Minister has still not been to Washington or New York. Canadians are embarrassed by this lack of leadership. It is setting a negative tone for trade and other relations with our best friend and neighbour.

The government is behaving as if there is no crisis, no need for critical action and no urgency. The drift and empty rhetoric go on.

[Canada-U.S. Meeting, September 20th, 2001]

Madam Chair, I cannot help saying how profoundly disappointed I am in the performance of the government at this critical time. The government is behaving as if there is no crisis, no need for critical action, no urgency, and as if defending the status quo is the way to go. The drift goes on and the empty rhetoric goes on.

This is a rejection of the values held by Canadians and is an insult to our friends. Americans are increasingly tired of Canada not delivering. George Bush, speaking tonight to the American people, did not include Canada in his list of countries that are friends. This was not just an oversight. He was delivering a message.

On behalf of Canadians, and more specifically the people who live in my constituency of Vancouver Island North, I extend our deepest sympathies to our friends in the United States and families around the world who lost loved ones in the terrorist attack of September 11. We cannot pretend to know the depth of grief of those who lost loved ones but we can assure them of our thoughts and prayers.

Canadians and Americans have so much that unites us, including family ties, friendship, business ties and a long history of aiding and abetting each other in times of war.

I phoned my American brother. I call him that because he moved to the United States in the mid-1970s and now works and lives in St. Louis with his American wife and four American children. Despite the distance we remain close, as families do, and we are certainly not unique in having family in both countries.

My brother was watching the British parliament on television as it discussed the attack on America. He shared his concerns with me about the laxity of Canadian national security measures and how unsettling it is for his American friends and colleagues. Those friends and colleagues are intensely aware of who America's friends are and what they are saying. They have been especially impressed, once again, with the level of commitment expressed by Britain.

I have read a lot of 20th century military history. In our war against terrorism what we need is co-operation, solidarity, commitment and trust of the kind and nature demonstrated in the deep relations established between the administrations of Churchill and Roosevelt and their emissaries, that great Canadian William Stephenson, who worked with that great American, Bill Donovan, architect of the OSS, the forerunner of the CIA. It was World War II and the stakes were high.

The stakes are high now too.

I do believe that the government still does not get it. There is no room to excuse anything less than an all out commitment to stamp out terrorism and to create domestic security in Canada which meets our international responsibilities, not just for Canadians but for our friends and neighbours.

Canada's unique relationship with the United States, geographically, demographically and in trade, gives us some special responsibilities. Earlier this week the Canadian Alliance asked the government to enact some straightforward measures: naming of all known international terrorist organizations operating in the country; a complete ban on fundraising activities in support of terrorism; immediate ratification of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism; the creation of specific crimes for engaging in terrorist training activities in Canada or inciting terrorists abroad; prompt extradition of foreign nationals charged with acts of terrorism; and detention and deportation to their country of origin of any people illegally in Canada or failed refugee claimants who have been linked to terrorist organizations.

One might wonder why many of these measures have not already been adopted. I certainly do wonder why and the official opposition has been asking. These measures should not even require much debate. They must be done and they must be done swiftly.

This is my measure of the government's resolve. Two days ago the government closed ranks to vote against implementing these measures. Strong, concerted, co-operative anti-terrorism measures are a responsibility and commitment that Canada must make and they must be unequivocal. This is what is expected of a friend and this is what will be required to win this war on terrorism. Anything less is aiding and abetting those who would undermine the very foundations of our free and democratic society. There is no other higher priority for parliament and the Government of Canada.

I want to tell the House what U.S. secretary of state Colin Powell said this week:

Some nations need to be more vigilant against terrorism at their borders if they want their relationship with the U.S. to remain the same. We're going to make it clear to them that this will be a standard against which they are measured with respect to their relationship with the United States.

The world has changed and the government should recognize that.

What we must do is take a step back, look at where we are headed on passage of people and goods between Canada and the U.S. and make essential changes. We know that NAFTA and the free trade agreement have been in effect for a decade and have had a positive influence on trade, wealth creation and jobs in Canada and the U.S. We have a huge just in time industry with connections across the border. With hourly inventory levels for automotive components and other industries, we can imagine how a problem at the border can affect business confidence in those kinds of industries.

Uncertainties will certainly negatively impact our ability to trade freely. The U.S. ambassador and Canadian industry are saying that a perimeter security strategy is essential to ensure continued cross-border co-operation. The U.S. has expressed continuing concerns about security risks emanating from the Canadian jurisdiction. Prior to last week's tragedy, Canada was taking at best a gradual or incremental approach to addressing these concerns.

September 11 has telescoped the timeframe. Rather than silence from the government we need a commitment to a perimeter security strategy which will ensure that it is as hard or harder for a terrorist to get into Canada as it is to go directly to the United States. Canadians want to see these actions. Americans want this action.

On top of commitments regarding our armed forces support and other measures, this is just one of the commitments the Prime Minister must make to President Bush on Monday. Nothing less is acceptable.

[Immigration, June 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, this past weekend, nine illegal immigrants were landed by boat on the B.C. coast. In 1999, 600 illegal immigrants landed on B.C.'s shores.

The Liberal government then promised action regarding sovereignty for our coast line, but actions speak louder than words. Aurora surveillance aircraft from Comox has had its flying hours reduced from 12,000 hours to 8,000 hours. Pilot and crew training requirements are the same but other client services, especially coastal surveillance, have been reduced significantly.

This is not an illegal immigrant issue, this is a sovereignty issue.

Why is it that foreign boats can cross the Pacific, reach Canadian landfall and be outside the 200 mile limit again before Canadian authorities know anything?

A strong surveillance deterrent for narcotics and other criminal activities is required.

Coastal residents in my riding know our surveillance is lacking and that the national interest is being managed poorly. When will the government get serious about Canadian sovereignty?

[Trade, June 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in the recent 201 action by the U.S. to protect its steel industry against dumping by foreign countries, we understand that Canada is technically exempt because of NAFTA rules.

The concern is that with the closure of the U.S. market Canada will be highly vulnerable to foreign dumping. What measures will the minister introduce to ensure that the Canadian steel industry is protected from this new threat?

[Trade, June 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, certain interests in the United States are becoming more and more protectionist in their trade relations.

P.E.I. potatoes were targeted for months. Canada's greenhouse tomatoes were attacked in March. The softwood lumber countervail and dumping actions continue. This month it is wheat and now steel. Meanwhile the federal Liberals are glowing about growth in energy exports.

What action will the minister take to stop this accelerated targeting of Canadian industries?

[The Environment, May 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, we all know about the ongoing malignant environmental catastrophe at the Sydney tar ponds in Cape Breton.

Millions have been spent since the 1980s to determine the negative effects of the tar ponds and on the ineffective cleanup. A week ago the government announced yet another plan. It will be testing, analyzing, carrying out risk assessments, holding meetings and creating more plans. This removes no one from harm's way.

The government has no common sense priority for spending. A month ago $560 million was given to the ministry of propaganda, oh, I mean the department of heritage, to spend on things like a virtual Internet museum when our museums already have Internet sites.

Some $10 million was spent in my riding to relocate the families of the Ahaminaquus Indian Reserve away from pulp mill discharges. Does the government think that the people of Cape Breton are less worthy?

[National Mining Week, May 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, today marks the beginning of National Mining Week which is celebrated annually to increase public awareness of the importance of mining.

How often do Canadians think about mining, minerals and metals and the crucial role they play? About 400,000 Canadians think about it every day because their livelihood depends on mining.

Minerals and metal exports represent 13% of total Canadian exports, 70% of the total volume handled at Canadian ports, and more than half of all total rail freight revenue. Canadian mining is a global leader. It is a productive and innovative sector closely linked to the knowledge based technology driven global economy.

I encourage all Canadians to reflect on our mining heritage and to recognize mining's contribution to our prosperity and to our international reputation as a centre of mining excellence.

[Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, May 14th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have much time. Yes, the bill waters down the authority of the minister of fisheries. We should all be very concerned about that.

I know that my colleague from Delta—South Richmond knows two of the people who were at that meeting in the last parliament as invitees. They were Paddy Greene and Bill Belsey from Prince Rupert, who will confirm what I say. I am truly concerned about the double minister requirement for fishing activity.