Russ Hiebert

[Pacific Gateway Act, November 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has raised the point that the gateway is in fact a gateway to the Prairies and that all of the Prairies will indeed benefit from these projects. But the Prairies will only benefit to the degree that the projects are actually done in British Columbia.

People from Winnipeg or Flin Flon, Manitoba probably are not aware of the South Fraser perimeter road and the impact that would have on the economy of Manitoba. They are just not aware of it. It is not on their radar screen. Yet it is front and centre for the people of British Columbia. They face it on a daily basis. The 13 hours of rush hour traffic over the Portmann Bridge is not something that people are thinking about in Lumsden, Saskatchewan.

The fact that the Prime Minister is setting up this council to have input from the Prairies is a novel one, but I do not see the Prairies having the direct impact or the direct insight or understanding of the urgent needs in the Lower Mainland. It would be like people in British Columbia telling people how to redirect a road in the greater Toronto area. That is what we are talking about here. We are talking about redirecting roads. We are talking about widening bridges. That is what is necessarily needed, and it is needed right now.

I am very disappointed that the government is trying to be all things to all people and is pretending that it has now solved the world's problems with this new council, but--

[Pacific Gateway Act, November 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raised a good point. The fact is that this legislation does nothing to address the urgent and immediate needs of British Columbians.

We know in B.C. where the problems lie. We have seen them for more than 12 years now while the Liberal administration has laid back and done nothing about them. Now just prior to an election that the Liberals are fearing they will lose, they are rolling out this council and are pretending to throw money at the problem, without being very specific. They just say, “Here is another slush fund. We will appoint this patronage council and that will solve all of the problems”. That is the way they deal with these problems. That is not good enough for British Columbia.

B.C. residents want to know what the government is going to do. No more talk, let us get down to action. Specific projects like the South Fraser perimeter road and twinning the Portmann Bridge, the North Fraser road and some of these other projects that are clearly identified need action now. They are beyond the point of talking. They are beyond the point of conjecture or speculation. They are at the point where action is needed.

The infrastructure that we are dealing with in British Columbia was constructed in 1963, yet the population has tripled since then. We are drastically behind where we need to be if we are going to serve British Columbia, or serve the country for that matter, as the gateway to the Asia-Pacific region.

I thank my colleague for raising this issue and for the excellent work he is doing as our transport critic. I just wish we had the opportunity to form government and actually take action on the things that we have been talking about for so long.

[Pacific Gateway Act, November 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-68, an act to support development of Canada's Pacific gateway. That is what the bill is called, but upon reflection, the bill is much like any other Liberal bill and many other Liberal actions. It is misnamed. It is rhetoric with little action to back up the words. Perhaps a better name for this bill would have been an act to appear to support development of Canada's Pacific gateway, without actually doing much of anything. The bill does little to support actual development of Canada's Pacific gateway.

Instead, the bill sets up an official federal advisory council, most of the members of which are to be appointed by the Prime Minister. Based on what we have seen with recent patronage appointments by the government, I am not optimistic about the promise of the Prime Minister to end cronyism with the introduction of this bill.

Nor am I confident that Bill C-68 is the solution to this issue. However this tiny step forward is all we have had from this government in 12 years, so we will take what we can get.

In truth, there is little need for a new advisory panel to attempt to reinvent the wheel. The B.C. government has already studied the issue in depth and produced the B.C. Ports Strategy. While the government continues to dither over Bill C-68, the province of B.C. produced its final plan for the ports back in March.

Let us take a look at what the B.C. government has already set as its vision and goals.

Its vision is for British Columbia to become the leading gateway for Asia-Pacific trade and the most competitive port system on the west coast of the Americas. Achieving this vision will enable the port system to contribute an additional $6.6 billion each year in economic output to the Canadian economy by 2020, with $4.7 billion of that accruing to British Columbia.

The number of ports related jobs in B.C. will grow from 18,000 now to 50,000 by 2020, with the value of wages rising from the present $1 billion to $2.7 billion annually.

By 2020, British Columbia's port system will have: an international reputation for a secure, world-class port system with exemplary service performance from dockside to customer; state of the art port terminals that use an appropriate mix of technology and people; the needs of industry and local communities in balance while preserving the environment and ensuring safety and security; one consistent region-wide approach to infrastructure planning and development with integration across the entire supply chain, avoiding duplication and overlap; a common policy approach across all levels of government that treats the port system as a strategic asset and economic generator, stimulating investment; and finally, a growing, productive and prosperous workforce.

The growth in B.C. ports is going to happen in three areas. First, through maximizing Asia-Pacific container traffic growth opportunities. Second, through maximizing export and regional growth opportunities. Third, through maximizing B.C.s position as a world cruise destination.

That is a great vision and one that is achievable and yet it is going to require significant investment. Absolutely essential is the need to expand our port capacity and transportation infrastructure. Unfortunately, the transport minister has offered only a pittance so far from the federal side.

While the $590 million recently announced for roads and bridges is desperately needed and long overdue, much more is needed. The B.C. Ministry of Transportation has outlined a list of priorities that are needed right now to deal with the gridlock and congestion. Among these are the proposed Port Mann-Highway 1 project, which includes twinning the Port Mann Bridge, upgrading interchanges and improving access and safety on Highway 1 from Vancouver to Langley.

The project provides for extending HOV lanes to Langley, allows for transit over the Port Mann Bridge and includes cyclist facilities across the new structure. It will relieve severe congestion impacting commuters and the large number of commercial vehicles that rely on this route, the lower mainland's primary truck route.

Another project is the North Fraser Perimeter Road, which is a proposed set of improvements on existing roads to provide an efficient, continuous route from New Westminster to Maple Ridge.

TransLink is responsible for the section through New Westminster, while the ministry is responsible for the segments from King Edward Street in Coquitlam to Maple Ridge, including a new Pitt River Bridge to replace the aging swing bridges. The proposed upgrades will improve safety and reliability along this important corridor, serving goods movement, commuters and growing communities.

A final project is the South Fraser Perimeter road which is proposed as a primarily new four lane, 80 kilometre route along the south side of the Fraser River extending from Deltaport Way in southwest Delta to 176th Street and the Golden Ears Bridge connector road in Surrey and Langley. It will provide a continuous and efficient route to serve the port facilities, rail yards and industrial areas along this key economic corridor and will also benefit commuters.

Each of these projects is designed to reduce congestion and vehicle idling, as well as speed commercial traffic to the ports. These projects will not only help build the Pacific gateway capacity, but they will also help the environment. Yet, the tepid response of the government so far to funding all these projects demonstrates the minimal concern the Liberals have for the problems faced by the lower mainland commuters and industry and for addressing a real environmental problem.

As a lower mainland MP who has to personally deal with the transportation infrastructure in B.C., I can tell the House the gridlock is a major problem in B.C. and the paltry funding that the Minister of Transport put on the table recently barely scratches the surface of the problem.

I want to mention one other critical problem affecting B.C. ports which the government is actually responsible for causing. That is the lack of an adequate police presence at west coast ports and, indeed, at all Canadian ports.

As co-chair of the parliamentary border caucus, I hear regularly from various front line officers of the Canada Border Services Agency who are dealing with threats to their personal safety and who are aware of the presence of organized crime having a significant foothold in many of our international seaports.

Of course, the smuggling of narcotics, weapons, money, people, stolen vehicles and other contraband can be achieved most efficiently through the seaport, and yet the Liberals are directly responsible for disbanding the specialized ports police when they first came to office.

Restoring integrity to the operation of our ports is essential if we are to attract and keep new business. As part of the Pacific gateway strategy I would urge the government to revisit the issue of port security as not only a criminal justice issue, but also as an issue of strength and competitiveness for our legitimate ports business.

The Prime Minister told the nation at the beginning of his mandate that if western alienation remained unchanged he would have failed. I know that the Prime Minister often forgets the promises that he makes but let him be reminded that actions speak louder than words and Bill C-68 is mostly words and very short on action.

As my colleague from West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast pointed out recently, the Liberal government is willing to blow $1 billion in an attempt to buy a seat for B.C. in this House, but it cannot seem to find the money to deal with the real problems that British Columbians face.

B.C. has long been a net contributor to equalization in Canada. Now, at a time when our ports need expansion, when traffic congestion grows, when our softwood producers need a national government to defend their interests, when street racing threatens lives, when the salmon fishery is in severe decline, when grow houses fill the suburbs, when waiting lists for surgery grow, when pine beetles threaten the interior forests and when tax relief is desperately needed, where is the Liberal government on these issues?

The view from the west is that Liberals are nowhere on these issues. They have consistently failed to defend B.C.'s interests. They have consistently failed to step up to the table with adequate funding for critical problems. They have consistently failed to reform our criminal justice system and they have consistently failed on every file.

Relationships, whether with people, provinces or other countries are a two-way street. This is something the Liberals fail to grasp. If the Prime Minister wants to know why western alienation is at perhaps an all time high, then he needs to recognize how each of these problems has grown worse under his Liberal administration.

We are willing to cooperate with the government even in its modest efforts to improve our B.C. ports. We are ultimately interested in standing up for British Columbia and Canada, despite our misgivings about the government and its lacklustre approach to the Pacific gateway initiative. As such, our party will be supporting Bill C-68.

[Canada-U.S. Relations, October 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, last night on the Hill, the Parliamentary Border Caucus met again to discuss issues of trade and security affecting the Canada-U.S. border. We were honoured to have the new U.S. Ambassador, David Wilkins, join us for a lively discussion about the Canada-U.S. relationship.

Of course, we talked about trade issues such as the softwood lumber dispute. The ambassador demonstrated he is well versed on the issue.

Among the other issues discussed were the details of how the western hemisphere travel initiative would affect those crossing the border in the future. Border MPs are concerned that the possibility of a “passport only” policy will damage tourism in their ridings. The high cost and inconvenience of passports will discourage many Canadians and Americans from travelling.

Instead, the border caucus proposes that both the U.S. and Canadian governments look at improving the security standards of other forms of government-issued ID, such as driver's licences, health cards and birth certificates.

I want to thank Ambassador Wilkins for his attendance and for his willingness to engage the border caucus on these all important issues.

[Criminal Code, October 25th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as the member for South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, I am very aware of the issues related to car theft in my community. That was the impetus behind why Mr. Cadman brought forward this initiative so many years ago. My question for my colleague is, in retrospect, why does he think the government has softened this bill so much?

The issue is of great concern to Surrey and the rest of the country. Mr. Cadman was doing excellent work in bringing forward this legislation and had a really good grasp of the issues. Why would the government then water it down in light of the expertise that was previously in the bill?

[U.S. Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, October 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for drawing to the attention of members opposite and to the public that the U.S. ambassador, David Wilkins, will be addressing the border caucus this Wednesday.

This will not be the first time he has heard about this issue. I met with him about two weeks past and raised the concerns we have. He has heard them from his own government in fact. We know that this past spring the President of the United States expressed some concern about the impact this would have.

My understanding is that the Americans are so focused on security issues that they perhaps in this instance have had a lack of foresight to contemplate the consequences of the legislation. I know that Justice Sensenbrenner, the member of Congress who brought forward the real ID bill, which was the precursor to the western hemisphere travel initiative, did so because of his concerns about illegal aliens in the United States. He was doing that to address that particular issue and that bill got transferred into the WHTI and before we knew it we were facing a crisis.

Mr. Wilkins, I am sure, is very well aware of this and he certainly will be apprised of our concerns on Wednesday when members of the border caucus speak with him, largely about this issue and perhaps other issues such as softwood and so on. Thankfully, I understand that we have some support in the United States, that members of the Congress and the Senate are with us on this issue, so hopefully working together we can draw the attention of the American Congress to revisit this question.

[U.S. Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, October 24th, 2005]

The Okanagan, as my colleague points out. They are counting the costs. They are looking ahead. They are anticipating what this will do to their travel plans.

In fact, as a member of the border caucus I hear on a regular basis about the impact this is currently having. It is not even in place yet and the tourism industry is suffering because of the anticipation that passports will be required. People do not seem to know that it is not in place yet and so they are shying away in the expectation that they have heard something about it in the media, that they have read an article or maybe that a friend told them this was coming and they now seem to think that it is in place and that they cannot cross the border without a passport.

It is having an impact as we speak. What will it take to get the government's attention? I am not sure but I sure hope we can get its attention as members of the opposition stand here late this evening to bring this to its attention.

[U.S. Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, October 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the great question but I honestly am not sure how to answer it. What will it take? Perhaps another catastrophe. Perhaps he will to dither until the border closes and then suddenly wake up and realize that we have a problem.

Our experience with the government is such that it takes an immediate crisis to get its attention. It cannot seem to plan too far ahead. It is so preoccupied with its own internal plans, scandals, corruption and grafts to their own members or past members that it cannot seem to see far enough ahead to anticipate the problems that we are facing.

To answer his question, I am not sure what it will take. Certainly the families that are planning their vacations for next Christmas or the Christmas after are starting to count the cost. They are starting to put away the pennies to pay for that extra $350 it will take for them to cross the border to go to Seattle or to Disney and for our American friends to come up to Whistler to see beautiful British Columbia.

[U.S. Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, October 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as far as whether or not I would support exemptions for people from the Yukon travelling to and fro across the border, I do not think that is the question that we are asking here. Canadians want to know whether there are going to be exemptions for all of Canada, not just for people who travel to and from Yukon. Let us not look just at the specifics. Let us look at the enormity of this problem.

It is no small task to ask 66% of Americans to get a passport or 49% of Canadians to get a passport when they do not currently have one. It is a task beyond the ability of either of our governments to meet in the short term before these requirements take effect.

It begs the question, where has the government been on this issue? This legislation has been around for several years. It has been passed in Congress. Our government has obviously known about it, but it has done absolutely nothing with it. The Prime Minister's silence on this issue is deafening. There are seven days left to submit comments on these regulations to the Department of Homeland Security, and the Prime Minister, or any member of his cabinet, has yet to stand in this House and tell Canadians what the plan is to prevent our economy from going down the toilet.

We are talking about $1 billion in tourism on an annual basis. That is an enormous hit to our economy. That is an enormous hit to every one of the small towns across the border, towns like South Surrey and White Rock, which are largely dependent upon tourism activity. Gas stations, restaurants, duty free stores on both sides of the border will suffer. Yet here we have a government so preoccupied with scandal and corruption that it cannot take the time to solve some of the most basic and pressing needs of the country. It strikes me as shocking, in fact, that it has been so silent on this particular issue.

[U.S. Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, October 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to take part in this take note debate on the U.S. government's western hemisphere travel initiative, or WHTI.

The WHTI is a major concern for all MPs who have border ridings with towns that depend on the tourism that crosses the 49th parallel, or for the Canadian economy generally. The WHTI may include a passport-only policy that would slow and even reduce the movement of Canadians and Americans across the border.

I represent South Surrey--White Rock--Cloverdale which has the busiest north-south corridor in western Canada. Seven million vehicles cross this corridor every year and a passport-only policy will have a major impact. Tourist dependent businesses such as hotels, gas stations, restaurants and duty free shops are all projected to suffer significant losses should the WHTI go ahead with the passport-only provision written in the regulations.

I also serve here in Parliament as one of the four co-chairs of the parliamentary border caucus, a non-partisan caucus that draws on members from all four parties who have an interest in trade and security issues affecting the border. I know many members of the border caucus have already written to the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security to encourage him to seriously reconsider the impact of a passport-only policy. Such a policy would likely have a negative effect on tourism, on individual and family finances, and possibly even on some aspects of long term security. Before I examine these issues in further detail, I want to reflect on the importance of the Canada-U.S. relationship.

We share the world's longest undefended border and the world's largest trading partnership. More than a quarter million Canadians were born in the U.S. and a whopping 650,000 Americans were born in Canada. More than 2.5 billion telephone calls were made between Canada and the U.S. last year and more than 14 million air travellers made their way north or south. More than $190 billion in American exports made their way to Canada last year, the top export destination for goods from 37 of the 50 United States. Almost all of that trade happened duty free because of NAFTA. In fact the U.S. exports more to Canada than to Britain, France, Germany, Japan and China combined. U.S. exports to Canada kept 5.2 million Americans employed last year.

I want to make it clear from the outset that I strongly support the broad goals of the WHTI and the added peace and security it will bring to the United States and North America. However, I do have serious concerns about how the regulations will be written and implemented by the Department of Homeland Security.

The legislation, as we know, includes a plan to require all Canadian citizens and U.S. citizens to have passports or comparable secure ID in order to enter or re-enter the U.S. This is an eminently sensible requirement. Our concern arises over what the Department of Homeland Security's requirements for secure ID will entail.

Let me be clear. I believe that the current system of admittance to the U.S. from Canada involving either a passport or government issued photo ID, usually a driver's licence of health card, combined with proof of citizenship, such as a birth certificate or citizenship card, should continue to constitute acceptable identification. As I will explain shortly, there are good public policy reasons for doing so. Of course, legitimate concerns have been raised by various U.S lawmakers that some state issued ID documents in particular do not contain enough security features to constitute secure ID.

We accept that some and perhaps all jurisdictions may need to increase the level of security features in their issued ID documents. However, the lack of adequate security features in some documentation should not be cause for rejecting the current system of photo ID and proof of citizenship out of hand. In other words, we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Instead, I would encourage the Department of Homeland Security to set appropriate minimum security standards for state issued ID which individual jurisdictions could then choose to meet in the best interests of their constituents. Such minimum standards for ID might include tamper resistance or better quality paper stock or the inclusion of new biometric features or technology.

Of course, as I think we can all quickly understand, raising the standards for the security of ID would be of benefit in more areas than simply border security.

Let us remember that both Canadian and American governments have risen to meet this sort of challenge before. We have not stopped using paper money just because some criminals chose to counterfeit it. Rather, we produced new bills with enhanced design and quality to defeat attempts at counterfeiting. I believe we can and must meet the same challenge with respect to government issued identification.

Failure to meet this challenge will be very costly. Approximately 300,000 people travel between Canada and the U.S. every day. The introduction of a rigid passport-only requirement can be expected to have an extremely detrimental effect on this cross-border travel, causing huge economic losses in tourism for both Canada and the United States.

According to a research study put out by the Canadian Tourism Commission in July of this year, tourism losses on the Canadian side alone would amount to nearly $1 billion annually by 2008 as the total U.S. trips to Canada fall by 12.3%. The cost is not only to the economy. There are significant concerns with the cost and feasibility of obtaining passports for both Canadian and American families.

Under the WHTI, even children would be required to have an individual passport. Currently, only 41% of Canadians hold passports. The cost of obtaining a standard passport in Canada, good for five years only, is $87 Canadian. For the average family of four, the $348 cost of obtaining passports for travel south becomes a hefty financial burden discouraging irregular travel. If a family vacation will cost an additional $350 before leaving home, many families may choose to vacation elsewhere.

In the same way, Americans would also suffer from these new passport requirements. Even fewer Americans hold passports, currently just 34%, and standard U.S. passports cost $97 U.S., although they are good for 10 years.

Not only are the financial burdens of this legislation significant, but they may actually present a new and unintended security risk. The new requirement to have easy and regular access to passports, especially in many of our border communities, would likely result in many Canadians and Americans changing their behaviour and storing their passports in their glove compartments or purses rather than securely in their homes. The risk of theft of these items would become increasingly serious if such changes in behaviour took place.

According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, the number of international travellers to the U.S. was 40.4 million in 2003. This is a sharp decline from 2000 when a record 50.9 million international travellers visited the United States. Obviously September 11 had and continues to have a major impact on the U.S. travel and tourism sectors. We can well appreciate the U.S. demand to prevent another terrorist attack. At the same time, if barriers to entry are made too high, the U.S. travel and tourism sectors could suffer as well. Even a 1% decline in travel to the U.S. eliminates 172,000 jobs, according to the commerce department.

Some members of the border caucus joined me on the Hill recently for a meeting with representatives of the cruise ship industry. We heard how the passport-only requirement would cause severe headaches for cruise ship patrons travelling up the west coast of North America to Alaska.

According to the industry, the majority of passengers do not currently own passports. Other concerns have arisen as well. How will students taking part in cross-border sporting events or school outings be treated? Will only well off families be able to afford a passport so their children can take part? Or will schools and teams just say they can no longer participate in these activities? I think that would be a tragedy and would not serve the long term interest that both Canada and the U.S. share of developing a relationship with our neighbours.

Finally, what about emergency personnel? There are many small border towns that have traditionally relied upon one another in times of trouble. Would appropriate emergency vehicles be prevented from racing to the scene of an accident just over the border simply because of the passport issue? I hate to think of what kind of unintended consequences may arise if this policy is allowed to pass without due consideration.

In conclusion, the problems created by a passport-only requirement would be significant. Among these would be increased costs for families, heightened security concerns with theft of documents and substantial economic losses in tourism, especially to border states and towns.

We do not believe such a requirement would be the best answer to meeting the security concerns of North America. Instead, let us work toward improving the security features in a range of government issued ID for the benefit of all Canadians and Americans.