Serge Cardin

[International Trade, May 12th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, at the very time that Canada is signing a free trade agreement with Colombia, the Uribe government is at the centre of a scandal. Its secret services have been engaged in wiretapping certain opponents of its regime, journalists and magistrates involved in the investigation of the connections between several members of Uribe's party and paramilitary groups.

Does the Minister of International Traderealize that the Colombian government is constantly violating human rights and that by signing this agreement he is sanctioning the anti-democratic actions of Alvaro Uribe?

[Committees of the House, May 11th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech.

I listen to CBC radio fairly often. I am also appalled by the cuts that have been made to it. On the weekend, because there is so much driving to do, I heard a broadcast on which a European Union parliamentarian spoke out against the way information was given to all parliamentarians. As my colleague was just telling us, monumental sums of money have been spent on disinformation. She even talked about threats. She said that some parliamentarians who were planning to vote against that law, to vote against the ban on seal products, received threats. Her opinion was that the way the campaign was conducted was deplorable. As my colleague just said, there are elections coming up and so this was probably electioneering.

My colleague asked whether we ourselves should offer information and not disinformation. To do that, the government has to get involved. Does he really believe, given the negotiations it is starting with the European Union, which represents a market worth tens of billions of dollars, that the government will want to mount an honest and responsible defence of the seal hunt in Canada?

[Customs Act, May 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I understand what my colleague went through because I had a similar experience in the United States.

If ever we worry about what happens here, we have only to look elsewhere if we want to feel better about ourselves. I believe—I hope—that border services in Canada and Quebec are much better than what my colleague and I experienced in the United States.

In any case, this bill has to go to committee, and the minister has to provide satisfactory responses to all of the issues raised in the House.

[Customs Act, May 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I almost feel like I have been travelling with the hon. member, since I have occasionally had similar impressions. I remember one time in particular when I was crossing the border with my young daughter. As was the trend in Quebec, we sometimes went to the United States to go shopping. I did not find anything and my daughter was disappointed, but we had not bought anything. When we got to the border, we were regarded as people who were trying to bring something in illegally. They really grilled my daughter with questions about her watch, since they thought it had been purchased in the U.S. They appeared to really want to find something. I do not know if my car had been picked randomly, but that happened in the past.

I do hope things have changed, however, especially when it comes to searching people. In fact, the Minister of Public Safety must ensure that agents who carry out these searches meet the standards of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We hope, we want, in fact we insist, that they proceed in this manner so that people's rights are respected when they are being searched.

When I was an accountant , the best way to exercise audit control was to make sure that standards were properly applied. I am sure that there will not just be one border services officer searching someone alone, hidden in a corner. I would hope that human rights will be respected. In a society like ours, this is just plain common sense, and it is necessary. I am sure that that will happen. However, individual officers may take advantage of a situation. This happens everywhere in society. The power will go to their heads, and they will force someone to answer their questions and submit to a search. That may happen, because it does happen.

I would hope that the measures that are in place to make sure that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is fully respected will be followed to the letter. People have to be able to trust border services officers. They are also working to protect our security. We want things to go smoothly at the border, but we also want security. It has become almost an obsession. There may be minor incidents from time to time. People want security, whether we are talking about individuals or goods. But we must not allow just anything into the country.

Earlier, members talked about counterfeit goods. If I purchase an original item worth $100, I do not want to find myself with $90 worth of phoney goods. We have to protect goods, but we have to provide just as much protection, if not more, for people, while respecting human rights.

[Customs Act, May 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about counterfeit goods. I am not necessarily an expert in border services, but I have had to use them on a few occasions, as many of us have. Certain individuals may have displayed some behaviour that I would perhaps not call meddlesome, but which, by their nature, could frankly help the agents do a very good job.

When I looked at this bill, I had some questions. I look at the importance of the border between Canada and the United States, and the number of places where people can cross in both directions. Of course there are border services at ports and in airports, but there are countless places that need to be monitored, and it is not humanly possible to monitor all of them.

Of course, modern techniques are needed to quickly detect if certain things are illegal. It is a huge job. Some methods do exist, but when they are insufficient, someone must also physically go there, which is what I would call scientific verification. Not all merchandise, equipment and individuals can be thoroughly checked. Someone must go there, perhaps not just by chance, but based on sampling, for both merchandise and individuals. As for counterfeit goods, even greater efforts are needed.

[Customs Act, May 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, we are indeed debating the border services act. I would like to begin by reading the summary of Bill S-2.

This enactment amends the Customs Act to clarify certain provisions and to make technical amendments to others. It also imposes additional requirements in customs controlled areas, amends provisions respecting the determination of value for duty, and modifies the advance commercial reporting requirements. Finally, it provides that regulations may incorporate material by reference.

Basically, as the title of the paragraph indicates, important factors must be put into context. If we take a moment to look at this bill's progress, we all know that Bill S-2 was introduced by Senator Marjory LeBreton, the Conservative leader in the Senate, on January 29, 2009. It passed third reading on April 23, 2009, and was sent to the House of Commons. It should be pointed out that it is identical to a bill bearing the same number and title introduced on December 2, 2008, as well as to Bill C-43 introduced on February 15, 2008, during the second session of the 39th Parliament. Both of those bills, of course, died on the order paper.

Bill S-2 amends the Customs Act to clarify certain provisions of the French version of the act and make technical amendments to others. It also imposes additional requirements in customs controlled areas, grants the minister the power to authorize entry, amends provisions respecting the determination of value for duty, and modifies the advance commercial reporting requirements. The search powers of customs officers are expanded to include individuals and their goods that are in or are leaving a customs controlled area. The bill also provides that regulations may be enacted that describe the time frame and manner in which information about passengers may be provided by prescribed persons.

The current Customs Act is the result of the total revamping of the 1867 act, which was undertaken in 1986 to maintain the original act’s three purposes and to allow for greater flexibility in light of developments in transportation, communication, trade and business practices.

Since 1986, the Customs Act has been amended continuously in response to free trade and related international agreements and to fine-tune international trade measures.

Primarily, though, this bill is designed to provide Canada Border Services Agency officers with information, tools and the flexibility they need to identify threats and prevent criminal activity, while ensuring that legitimate goods and travellers can cross the border efficiently.

Under the amendments that have been announced, all businesses that are part of the import chain are required to provide the Canada Border Services Agency with electronic data on their shipments before the goods reach Canada. With this advance information, the Canada Border Services Agency will be able to make better decisions about admitting goods and analyzing the risks they pose to Canadians.

Other changes will allow the agency to fully establish customs controlled areas that will provide greater flexibility to officers for examining goods or questioning and searching persons, regardless of their location within these zones, and not only at exit points as currently provided under the existing legislation. Even though Bill S-2 seems adequate at first glance, an in-depth review of this legislation and close questioning of government and Canada Border Services Agency officials will be necessary.

The bill also includes other amendments. Here are some of the main changes to the Customs Act that are proposed in Bill S-2. Clause 2 eliminates the requirement for the minister to make a regulation to grant access to a customs controlled area to any person. From now on, the minister will be able to authorize such access directly. Clause 3 eliminates the exemption that applies to persons leaving a customs controlled area to board a flight with a destination outside Canada. Now, these persons will be required to present themselves to an officer, identify themselves, report any goods acquired while in the customs controlled area, and answer questions.

Clause 4 amends the power of the governor in council to make regulations respecting the persons or classes of persons who may be granted access to a customs controlled area, and regarding the manner in which a person in a customs controlled area, or a person leaving such area, must present himself or herself. Clause 5 amends the requirement to report goods imported into Canada, so that a prescribed person, and not the person in charge of the conveyance, must report the goods at the nearest customs office. So, a regulation defining those prescribed persons will determine who must report the goods at the nearest customs office.

Clause 12 of the bill amends the act to allow the minister to set the prescribed time and manner in which he can require a prescribed person to provide information about any person on board a conveyance, under prescribed circumstances and conditions. Clause 7 amends the methods used to adjust the transaction value of imported goods when proceeds accrue to a vendor following a subsequent sale. This change can lead to the setting of a higher value and, consequently, to an increase in the duties paid by importers.

Clause 10 amends the act to authorize an officer to search any person who is in or is leaving a customs controlled area if the officer suspects on reasonable grounds that the person has secreted on or about their person anything in respect of which this Act or the regulations have been or might be contravened. Clause 11 amends the act to enable an officer, in accordance with the regulations, to conduct a non-intrusive examination of goods in the custody or possession of a person who is in or is leaving a customs controlled area.

Our main point of disagreement with Bill S-2 is that the Customs Act is a linking legislation between duties and tariffs paid by importers under the customs tariff, and security and safety legislation under various other Acts. The changes made to the methods of valuation of imported goods may also decrease disputes regarding the calculation of duties. This may also increase revenues obtained from duties if the value of imported goods is more likely to be adjusted upward as a result of the proposed changes in the valuation provisions.

The advance information requirements proposed by the bill are intended to improve risk assessment of imported goods at the border.

Combined with the expanded search powers of officers in customs controlled areas, this may lead to decreased amounts of dangerous counterfeit goods entering Canada through customs controlled areas.

Currently, border services agents are authorized to search individuals only at exit points from controlled areas. If this bill is passed, border services agents will be authorized to conduct searches in controlled areas, as Ms. Kerr-Perrott explained during the Senate Standing Committee on National Security and Defence's examination of Bill S-2. She said:

—an officer would question the person at an exit point, where the person must speak to a CBSA officer. The officer can ask questions and can search if it is deemed necessary. In this new scenario, the customs officers could ask similar questions within the customs controlled area, and if there are reasonable grounds to conduct a search, the officer would indeed proceed with a search. The officers would be trained appropriately, and individuals within the customs controlled areas would be advised of the possibility that a search could occur. There would be notification.

The Minister of Public Safety has provided assurances that officers conducting these searches will be subject to the requirements of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms with respect to protecting the constitutional rights of the individuals searched. However, the bill also grants discretionary authority to the government to establish and even expand these areas. The controlled area could be expanded to cover the entire airport or port and even parking and drop-off areas.

The authority granted to border services agents would be disproportionate. Consequently, an in-depth study of these provisions must be carried out in committee. I would like to point out that the RCMP, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and Transport Canada support the changes to customs controlled areas. Airport authorities also consider the use of customs controlled areas to be a reasonable security measure and port authorities acknowledge the need for customs controlled areas in proximity to commercial and cruise ships.

To summarize, it is important to understand that there is a great need for flexibility at borders and in customs. We have also known for a number of years that there is also a great need for security.

Thus, both elements must be considered to ensure that border crossings and security are efficient. That is why I reiterate that flexibility is required in order to detect threats and to prevent criminal activities while ensuring that legitimate goods and travellers can freely cross the border.

I will close by saying that the Bloc Québécois supports Bill S-2.

As I said earlier—and it bears repeating—the bill will be sent back to committee, where certain aspects will be examined closely in order to improve the bill and increase its effectiveness. As I have already said, even if, at first glance, the bill seems acceptable, it must scrutinized. We must also further question Canada Border Services officials to ensure that the proposed changes will be effective. The government must be open to the changes or recommendations proposed by the committee, which will surely be positive.

[Customs Act, May 4th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, several changes may be made to the Canada Border Services Agency. For various reasons, more flexibility is required. They also want to expand the controlled areas. However, as the member mentioned earlier, this should not become complicated, nor should an arbitrary approach be taken to problems of accessibility. Above all, we must create an efficient flow of goods and people. Obviously, there is the issue of security, but on occasion, people find themselves in unusual circumstances.

According to the member, how do we reconcile having an efficient and smooth flow through border services, and a certain level of security, for those goods and individuals we do not wish to have in our territory? How does the member believe we can reconcile these two equally important elements?

[Customs Act, May 4th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, if I am not mistaken, we are discussing the full implementation of customs controlled areas.

I would like the member to explain the overall functioning of what is being identified and called a customs controlled area because it is not clear from the bill. We perhaps should read the statute to compare them, but when I look at the bill, it is not clear to me what is meant by a customs controlled area.

What exactly do they encompass physically and what exactly do they do?

[Corporate Social Responsibility and the Canadian Extractive Industry in Developing Countries, April 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak on Motion No. 283.

I sit on the Standing Committee on International Trade and the government has signed free trade accords and agreements, obviously. This element affects the mining companies that, obviously, do not realize their responsibilities. What is more, these free trade agreements contain nothing about the social role the companies should assume. These are conditions the Bloc Québécois feels are vital to its support of such agreements. Given the fact that the agreements have already been signed, all that we can do is to put a stop the implementation bill. I do not think that things will change as quickly as they should, or should have, changed.

To review the motion itself rapidly, it reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should act immediately to implement the measures of the Advisory Group report “National Roundtables on Corporate Social Responsibility and the Canadian Extractive Industry in Developing Countries” by creating, in an appropriate legal framework and with the funds needed, an independent ombudsman office with the power to receive and investigate complaints

There are Canadian mining companies in many countries—around 100 countries, I believe. Canadian mining companies have invested in some 3,200 or perhaps 4,000 operations abroad. What is more, these companies are heavily involved in such operations. The Bloc Québécois has long been concerned with the issue of social and environmental responsibility of Canadian companies abroad, and most particularly Canadian mining companies.

To all intents and purposes, Canada is one of the world leaders in the mining industry. It has a significant presence in Africa, where the majority of companies are Canadian or American, incorporated here or listed on Canadian stock exchanges. This is a sign that there is something going on. The majority—60% I think—of Canadian companies operating mines in other countries are of, course, listed on Canadian stock exchanges but have their origins elsewhere. In order to take advantage of the generous Canadian legislation, they get themselves listed on Canadian stock exchanges and then operate mines elsewhere.

For some years now, a number of Canadian mining companies have been directly or indirectly associated with forced population displacements, significant environmental damage, support to repressive regimes, serious human rights violations and sometimes even assassinations. I very clearly recall, during a committee visit to Colombia, we had the opportunity to visit villages where people had been displaced from their lands, from their homes, from their territory, specifically to make room for certain mining companies. Furthermore, some mining companies are even protected by armed paramilitary groups. And those paramilitary groups in Colombia are definitely not boy scouts.

That is why the Bloc Québécois has always defended the need to impose standards of social responsibility on companies when operating abroad. But the federal government has always defended the principle of laissez-faire, preferring a voluntary approach. Also, we have always defended the recommendations in the advisory group report entitled “National Roundtables on Corporate Social Responsibility and the Canadian Extractive Industry in Developing Countries”, whose recommendations were unanimously supported by civil society and the extractive industry. The Bloc Québécois therefore supports motion M-283. We have frequently denounced the overseas activities of certain Canadian extractive companies that violate human rights and compromise the sustainable development of local populations.

I would remind the House that since the report of the National Roundtables on Corporate Social Responsibility and the Canadian Extractive Industry in Developing Countries was released, the government has not taken it upon itself to implement any of the advisory group's recommendations. The government is not imposing any accountability measures on Canadian companies in the extractive sector and has not created an independent ombudsman office to examine complaints received about Canadian resource extraction companies.

As I was saying earlier, the issue of the social and environmental responsibility of Canadian companies abroad, especially Canadian mining companies, has been a longstanding concern for the Bloc Québécois. Canada and some mining companies maintain that mining operations in the southern hemisphere provide a means of fighting poverty and ensuring the development of these countries. The reality is altogether different. Canada has taken the position, and defended it since the 1990s, that foreign investment in the extractive sector brings development to poor countries and helps reduce poverty.

This type of investment strategy can actually produce wealth in poor countries and engender economic and social development. However, for that to take place, the state in those countries must be able to define medium- and long-term development strategies. That presupposes that the local state has the institutional and political means to do so as well as the necessary resources to negotiate and implement such development strategies and ensure that they run their course.

In the 1980s and 1990s, certain multilateral financial institutions imposed draconian debt repayment measures on these countries. These institutions imposed liberalization and privatization measures on indebted states to ensure repayment of the amounts owing. These structural adjustment policies forced the local state to withdraw from these areas of activity and to allow foreign investors to step in. Thus, local states lost the ability to regulate and monitor the existing practices necessary for social, environmental and economic development.

Time passes very quickly. I only have enough time to conclude my remarks, even though I could have identified tens, if not hundreds, of important aspects that we must remember and keep in mind. At present, the government is not acting as a good parent. It is allowing Canadian companies that operate mines in foreign countries to act irresponsibly by not respecting their social role and, above all, by not protecting the environment.

The Canadian government should take all important aspects into consideration in order to ensure that there is a real framework for the conduct of mining companies abroad and that these companies foster the development of the people and the countries in question.

[Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, April 21st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to consent to the amendment.