House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 57% of the vote.
Sponsorship Program June 13th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, earlier this month, Mr. Chrétien concluded a secret agreement with the government, under which the government would not oppose a right to a future challenge to Justice Gomery. In fact, another challenge could delay the Gomery commission.
Why did the government sign an agreement that could delay the tabling of Justice Gomery's final report and the election promised by the Prime Minister for months?
Canada Border Services Agency Act June 13th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, as usual, my colleague from Calgary brings a common sense approach to this. I know he has dedicated much of his life to law enforcement and follows these issues closely.
The short answer to his question is that sadly the government has done very little when it comes to improving the actual security and, in particular, the personnel, equipment and legislative backing that they require. As the member noted, a vast territory has to be covered in most instances. It is also increasingly complicated.
Since the 9/11 attacks we know the risks are even greater and the desperation involved is even greater. It is extremely daunting for border service agents to know that these are the types of people they may encounter and yet they do not have sidearms. In many cases they do not have the protective equipment they need and, more to the point, they do not have the technological advantages that would allow them to identify the very individuals who pose that threat.
I mentioned the fact that vehicles were driving across the border, carrying God knows what, without being stopped. That is the clearest sign that our border is porous, that people are both crossing into Canada and leaving undetected in many instances. That means we need more equipment, we need more maintenance budget and we need more technology. We need to use the most advanced security measures available to man. We have the ability to access that type of technology.
When I think about the task before the CBSA and what the government is requiring and Canadians are expecting its members to do and what they get in return to do that actual job, it is the government's failure and our collective failure in Parliament if we do not see Bill C-26 through. We must enable and empower those border security officers to do that important work and to do it to the best of their ability with the full backing, the full technological and equipment advantages that they need and the training, I am quick to add, as well because of the changing world and the complexity of the issues around security.
We also have to work closer with the Americans. We have to work toward, what I suggested earlier, a North American security perimeter. The water remains the biggest threat as far as those items coming into Canada, particularly on container ships. These container ships can bring large items into Canada, anything from a dirty bomb, to people, to child pornography, to weapons, to drugs, anything we are trying to detect coming in these containers, of which a minuscule portion, a percentage of a percentage point, actually receive the scrutiny required to detect them at the ports.
The Conservative Party takes this issue very seriously. We have made it a major plank in our platform. We look forward to having an opportunity to implement that one day in government.
Canada Border Services Agency Act June 13th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for that. The bill is essentially an enabling piece of legislation. The department has been in existence since September of 2003, so that speaks volumes to the serial dithering nature of the Liberal government. The department has been set up and operating for over a year and a half, and this is a cleanup attempt.
The bill amalgamates the border services of the Canada Customs and Reveneue Agency, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and part of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. The bill was reported to the House with two amendments and the government introduced another amendment at report stage to correct an error in the bill.
With respect to the amendments passed by the committee, the first is one that I moved. It calls for an annual report of the operations and performance of the agency and that this requirement should be enshrined into the legislation. It requires that the agency table an annual report after the end of the fiscal year and before the calendar year. In other words the 2005 report of the agency would have to be tabled after March 31, 2006, but before the end of the December 2006 calendar year. Goodness knows there is a need for more accountability and reporting on the activities of government like never before. The amendment attempts to do that.
The parliamentary secretary has noted that the Treasury Board, on behalf of the Canada Border Services Agency, files a performance report and that this report should be considered that annual report. My point is the requirement under the Financial Administration Act does not specifically say that an annual report or performance report is required. It now does.
Other agencies that file performance reports are also required by statute to file annually. They include SIRC, the Correctional Investigator, Correctional Service Canada and the RCMP External Review Committee. That is what the amendment seeks do. I think we all can agree that shining the light into the operations of government is an important part of achieving accountability.
There is nothing simpler than putting into the legislation that an annual report be tabled by the agency. I do not wish to cause additional work in this regard, as far as filing an annual report, but subclause 2 states that the obligation may be satisfied by filing or tabling reports of the operation and performance of the agency required by the Treasury Board. This would also ensure that a report of some kind would be filed each year on the operations of the agency.
The second amendment ensures that officers who act as peace officers to enforce immigration and refugee acts are identified in the Criminal Code as peace officers. This again would put officers on par with front line peace officers and border officers. We in the Conservative Party support that amendment.
The creation of the new Border Services Agency itself makes sense. It is something that the Conservative Party has long advocated. However, we do argue that we ensure our border officers are equipped with proper technology, equipment and personnel. It is one thing to empower them through legislation. It is another thing entirely to give them the tools necessary to do the job.
I would specifically point to the issue of remote border crossings. The government must act immediately to end the practice of border officials working alone. We have seen the tragedy that can occur. One officer working in Roosville suffered a medical condition and died on the job. This is the type of thing that brings the vulnerability of those remote sites clearly into the light and the danger and loss of life that can result from these single agent border crossings.
Earlier this year, the justice committee heard testimony from the president and vice-president of the Quebec region of the Customs Excise Union about the problems facing border officials. Shockingly, we heard about 1,600 vehicles crossing the border last year without being stopped. They describe those 1,600 vehicles as blow-bys or cars racing across the border without being stopped. The president, Mr. Moran, testified that if two per cent of those people who ran the border were brought back, that would be good in terms of the numbers they could handle.
In Stanstead, Quebec over 250 unidentified vehicles illegally entered into Canada each month by using two unguarded roads. In Quebec alone there were over 100 unguarded roads at the border.
Our new ambassador to the United States says that Canada's biggest problem is gun smuggling from the United States. Guns, drugs, people smuggling, any form of contraband coming into the country undetected, poses a threat to our citizens.
Just to put this in perspective, over a five year period more than 25,000 prohibited weapons, including over 5,400 illegal weapons, were seized by our border agencies. That is what was seized. The real question is how much was not captured. It is frightening to think what has not been recovered or what that figure is.
Rather than fixing this Swiss cheese style border, an effective border policy will require more. It will require the government to put more resources and more protection around those individuals tasked with guarding the border. If the government took money out of the gun registry and put it into this type of frontline border security, it would be a step in the right direction.
I cannot let the catastrophic failure of the gun registry go by without commenting. It makes the sponsorship scandal look like chicken feed. It probably will be identified in some future years as the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on an unsuspecting public. Despite the spin and the rhetoric, there is no nexus to public safety when one looks at the effectiveness of this failed long gun registry.
The RCMP commissioner has admitted that the RCMP does not have the resources to fulfill the mandate of patrolling the border at points of entry and therefore is withdrawing its services in Quebec. The closing of nine detachments in Quebec highlights that resource problem. Taking officials away from where the problem exists is ludicrous. Ironically, the commissioner has admitted that there is danger facing border officials and yet he does not support allowing them to carry sidearms. I would suggest to him that he would not be apt to try to stop somebody who was deemed dangerous if he did not have a sidearm.
Our neighbours in the United States continue to be concerned about security. Recently U.S. secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, expressed her concern about the Canadian border when she stated:
Indeed we have from time to time had reports about al Qaeda trying to use our southern border but also trying to use our northern border.
Senator Hillary Clinton echoed those concerns about the northern security issue and introduced a bill that would establish a northern border coordinator in the United States homeland security department in order to focus exclusively on the increasing security issue at the Canada-U.S. border.
In April, United States congressman, Mark Souder, called upon Canada to focus more on security and to give border security the proper resources and attention. He was concerned about the non-existent or flawed computer checks on incoming passengers and database systems designed to warn border agents at land crossings about high risk travellers being inadequate and containing a programming limitation consistently preventing border officials from knowing if they are dealing with armed and dangerous fugitives or even terrorists on the FBI's top watch list.
It seems incredible that we would have antiquated, out of date computer systems that do not allow us to share information with the United States, let alone share information with our own security agents and policing agents. That to me is an abysmal failure. These concerns about Canada's security have been echoed in the past by former U.S. ambassador Paul Cellucci.
In some cases I have been told anecdotally that our border officials from time to time need to ask the Americans for information about what is going on in Canada, as astounding as that might be. I mentioned earlier the problem of physically withdrawing the RCMP from the Canadian border. That is perverse logic put out by the commissioner. This is despite reports from the RCMP's own criminal intelligence unit that organized crime exploits at marine ports, airports and land border areas to smuggle contraband and people into Canada is flourishing.
This has become a huge issue, especially since the disbanding of the ports police by the Liberal government in the mid-nineties. Our ports remain our biggest vulnerability and auto theft at the ports remains rampant. I spoke recently with the Canadian insurance industry, which is willing to work with Canadian officials to try to alleviate this, but it has received very little positive feedback as far as its efforts to work and share collectively the information it has at its disposal.
The criminal intelligence unit's 2004 annual report notes that organized crime will continue to exploit the large volume of land, commercial and travel movement between the U.S. and Canada to smuggle commodities, currency and people in both directions. As well, organized crime will exploit the less monitored areas between the designated custom ports of entry.
Our committee did not hear from the union representing customs and excise but I understand it will be asking the Senate to examine Bill C-26 with a view to expanding the mandate of the CBSA to establish a border patrol service to enforce the border between ports of entries.
The challenge for our border officials remains large. A report compiled by the agency shows that over the past 5 years, 39 officers have been threatened, 234 were assaulted and 19 injured. These figures speak for themselves.
The reference to the number of contraband guns and other items coming into the country is staggering and Mr. Moran stated at one point that they were given a bullet proof vest to get shot at but no guns to shoot back.
The Senate committee on national security and defence made recommendations on how to improve security at the ports and border crossings and the government did accept some but not all of them. Many have been ignored.
The bill will continue on its path and it will go to the Senate. Hopefully the Senate, in its wisdom, will bring forward some amendments that will improve on the legislation. It is time to start looking at the broader picture of a North American border security perimeter and have the ability to secure continental security. That is the next free trade for our country. It is the area in which we should be moving because we know that security trumps trade. This is in Canada's interest.
Canada Border Services Agency Act June 13th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate.
I am pleased to speak to Bill C-26, which is an act to establish the Canada Border Services Agency. I seek the unanimous consent of the House to split my time with the hon. member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry.
Health June 10th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, this is what the foreign affairs minister had to say about private health care:
If some provinces want to experiment with private delivery options, my view is that as long as (provinces) respect the single, public payer, we should be examining these efforts and then compare notes between the provinces.
He went on to say:
I'm saying that the Canada Health Act does not preclude delivery of services by private elements as long as there is a single public payer.
This is a government member, a minister of the Prime Minister's own government, saying that we are going down that road. How does he explain this basic, blatant hypocrisy within his own government?
Health June 10th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, that is very interesting. This is what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence had to say:
To save our medical system, we must embrace new ideas, such as allowing a separate, parallel, private system to augment and enhance our public system.
The Supreme Court said that as a result of wait lists, patients in Canada are dying. The Liberal government's cuts caused the crisis in health care, the loss of doctors and nurses, and the growth of private health care clinics. Wait times doubled on the Prime Minister's watch.
Did the Prime Minister not foresee the growth in private health care as a result of his cuts or is it, as Sheila Copps said recently, that the Prime Minister's hidden agenda was to have a two tier health care system?
Health June 10th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, no one in Canada is more responsible for the declining state of health care than the Prime Minister. The unilateral cuts to health care that he inflicted a decade ago do not come close to a fix for a generation that he boldly proclaimed last September.
Dr. Albert Schumacher, president of the Canadian Medical Association, said that the financial commitment was not nearly enough to provide the kind of quality health care patients deserve.
While the Prime Minister waits for his generational fix to kick in, what should Canadians do about their personal, lengthy wait times for surgical procedures, just pull out their credit cards like he does?
Health June 9th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is a stranger to the truth. He knows he cut $25 billion from health care.
The Supreme Court's decision today says:
The evidence shows that, in the case of certain surgical procedures, the delays that are the necessary result of waiting lists increase the patient’s risk of mortality or the risk that his or her injuries will become irreparable.
Wait times have doubled under the Liberal government. There is no plan and with the Prime Minister's one-off deals with the provinces he has created the potential for a 10 tier system of private-public health care.
What will the Prime Minister do to address this patchwork system of health care for Canadians and how does he respond to Quebec's demands today?
Health June 9th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, the reality is the Prime Minister and that party brought medicare into peril. The Prime Minister himself may benefit from a parallel health system but most Canadians cannot.
Ten years ago the Prime Minister, then finance minister, took $25 billion out of the health care system. Downloading of costs to the provinces and increasing the wait times for patients are the direct result of his actions. The Prime Minister said that he brought in a health care fix for a generation. In reality, Canadians may suffer lengthy wait times for another generation to fix health care.
How could Canadians possibly believe the Prime Minister has solutions when he is the perpetrator of the problem?
Health June 9th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, today's decision from the Supreme Court opens the door to further deterioration of the publicly funded health care system in Canada. The Canadian Medical Association stated, “medically necessary health care delayed is health care denied”.
Due to the cuts imposed by the Prime Minister for over a decade, Canadians' timely access to health care was the victim of political decisions of the Liberal government. As minister of finance, he was the architect of those cuts.
Further court actions could destroy the underpinnings of the Canada Health Act. What will the Prime Minister do to ensure that Canada's universally accessible, publicly funded health care system is preserved?