38th PARLIAMENT,
1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 114
CONTENTS
Monday, June 13, 2005
|
 |
Private Members' Business
|
|
|
Excise Tax Act |
|
|
Ms. Diane Finley (Haldimand—Norfolk, CPC) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Business of the House |
|
|
Hon. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
(Motion agreed to)
|
|
|
Suspension of Sitting |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 11:17 a.m.)
|
|
|
Sitting Resumed |
|
|
(The House resumed at 12:02 p.m.)
|
|
|
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
|
|
Budget Implementation Act, 2005 |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Hon. Ken Dryden |
|
|
Ms. Rona Ambrose (Edmonton—Spruce Grove, CPC) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Hon. Bryon Wilfert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Mr. Guy Côté (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, BQ) |
|
|
Ms. Rona Ambrose |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Mr. Guy Côté (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, BQ) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Canada Border Services Agency Act |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
|
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
|
Mr. Guy Lauzon (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Guy Lauzon |
|
|
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
|
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—Tecumseh, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
|
Mr. John Maloney (Welland, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine) |
|
|
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
|
|
Public Service |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.) |
|
|
Justice |
|
|
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, CPC) |
|
|
Canadian Diabetes Association |
|
|
Hon. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.) |
|
|
National Public Service Week |
|
|
Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ) |
|
|
UN Framework Convention on Climate Change |
|
|
Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.) |
|
|
Bridgewater Flood |
|
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's, CPC) |
|
|
Poland |
|
|
Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj (Etobicoke Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
150th Anniversary of the Town of Saint-Sauveur |
|
|
Ms. Johanne Deschamps (Laurentides—Labelle, BQ) |
|
|
Seniors Month |
|
|
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.) |
|
|
Aerospace Industry |
|
|
Mr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC) |
|
|
Valigia D'oro Awards |
|
|
Mrs. Susan Kadis (Thornhill, Lib.) |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP) |
|
|
Child Care |
|
|
Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake, CPC) |
|
|
Rock Banville |
|
|
Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ) |
|
|
John Lynch-Staunton |
|
|
Mr. David Tilson (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC) |
|
|
Fight against Cancer |
|
|
Mr. Jean-Claude D'Amours (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.) |
|
|
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
|
|
Health |
|
|
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC) |
|
|
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Sponsorship Program |
|
|
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP) |
|
|
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
Child Care |
|
|
Ms. Rona Ambrose (Edmonton—Spruce Grove, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Ken Dryden (Minister of Social Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Rona Ambrose (Edmonton—Spruce Grove, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Ken Dryden (Minister of Social Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Sponsorship Program |
|
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
Member for Newton—North Delta |
|
|
Ms. Nicole Demers (Laval, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Nicole Demers (Laval, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Child Care |
|
|
Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Ken Dryden (Minister of Social Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Ken Dryden (Minister of Social Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Access to Information |
|
|
Mr. Russ Hiebert (South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Reg Alcock (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Reg Alcock |
|
|
Mr. Russ Hiebert (South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Reg Alcock (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.) |
|
|
Candu Reactor |
|
|
Mr. Marc Godbout (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. R. John Efford (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.) |
|
|
Employment |
|
|
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Shipbuilding Industry |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.) |
|
|
Marriage |
|
|
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Paul Harold Macklin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Paul Harold Macklin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
National Defence |
|
|
Mr. Gordon O'Connor (Carleton—Mississippi Mills, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gordon O'Connor (Carleton—Mississippi Mills, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
Veterans Affairs |
|
|
Mr. Dave MacKenzie (Oxford, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Dave MacKenzie (Oxford, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
International Aid |
|
|
Mr. Michael Savage (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Justice |
|
|
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, CPC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, CPC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Art Hanger |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Maher Arar Inquiry |
|
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Geoff Regan (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.) |
|
|
Softwood Lumber |
|
|
Mr. David Smith (Pontiac, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Jacques Saada (Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec and Minister responsible for the Francophonie, Lib.) |
|
|
Employment Insurance Act
|
|
|
Bill C-280 — Speaker's Ruling |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Routine Proceedings
|
|
|
Government Response to Petitions |
|
|
Hon. Raymond Simard (Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Minister responsible for Official Languages and Minister responsible for Democratic Reform, Lib.) |
|
|
Committees of the House |
|
|
Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology |
|
|
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, Lib.) |
|
|
Foreign Affairs and International Trade |
|
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ) |
|
|
Petitions |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC) |
|
|
Marriage |
|
|
Mr. Richard Harris (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Employment Insurance |
|
|
Hon. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.) |
|
|
Natural Health Products |
|
|
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP) |
|
|
Community Access Program |
|
|
Mr. Gord Brown (Leeds—Grenville, CPC) |
|
|
Marriage |
|
|
Mr. Peter Van Loan (York—Simcoe, CPC) |
|
|
Foreign Affairs |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC) |
|
|
Marriage |
|
|
Mr. Bradley Trost (Saskatoon—Humboldt, CPC) |
|
|
Diabetes |
|
|
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, CPC) |
|
|
Marriage |
|
|
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC) |
|
|
Questions on the Order Paper |
|
|
Hon. Raymond Simard (Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Minister responsible for Official Languages and Minister responsible for Democratic Reform, Lib.) |
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Canada Border Services Agency Act |
|
|
Mr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Joe Preston |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Joe Preston |
|
|
Mr. Russ Hiebert (South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Russ Hiebert |
|
|
Mr. Wajid Khan (Mississauga—Streetsville, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Wajid Khan |
|
|
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Wajid Khan |
|
|
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. John Duncan |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine) |
|
|
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
|
|
|
Statistics Act |
|
|
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Lloyd St. Amand (Brant, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. David Tilson (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Lloyd St. Amand |
|
|
Hon. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Lloyd St. Amand |
|
|
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Lloyd St. Amand |
|
|
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC) |
|
|
Routine Proceedings
|
|
|
Extension of Sitting Hours |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine) |
|
|
(Division 102) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
|
|
Statistics Act |
|
|
Mr. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. David Tilson (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. James Rajotte |
|
|
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. James Rajotte |
|
|
Mr. Marc Boulianne (Mégantic—L'Érable, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. David Tilson (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Marc Boulianne |
|
|
Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. David Tilson (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Nathan Cullen |
|
|
Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Nathan Cullen |
|
|
Mr. Larry Miller (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Larry Miller |
|
|
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Larry Miller |
|
|
Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Larry Miller |
|
|
Mr. David Tilson (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. David Tilson |
|
|
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. David Tilson |
|
|
Mr. Ken Epp (Edmonton—Sherwood Park, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Greg Thompson |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
|
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
|
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Werner Schmidt |
|
|
Hon. Dan McTeague (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Werner Schmidt |
|
|
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Werner Schmidt |
|
|
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
|
Hon. Dan McTeague (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
|
Hon. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
|
Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Bradley Trost (Saskatoon—Humboldt, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Bradley Trost |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
|
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Remote
Sensing Space Systems Act |
|
|
Hon. Joe McGuire |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Fisheries Act |
|
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's, CPC) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Mr. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Michael Chong |
|
|
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Greg Thompson |
|
|
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—Richmond East, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Greg Thompson |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell |
|
|
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—Richmond East, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell |
|
|
Mr. Randy Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell |
|
|
Mr. Peter Van Loan (York—Simcoe, CPC) |
|
|
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Van Loan |
|
|
Mr. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Van Loan |
|
|
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—Richmond East, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
|
Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's South—Mount Pearl, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Julian |
|
|
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. John Duncan |
|
|
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—Richmond East, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. John Duncan |
|
|
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—Richmond East, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. John Cummins |
|
|
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. John Cummins |
|
|
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's South—Mount Pearl, CPC) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
CANADA
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Monday, June 13, 2005
Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
Private Members' Business
[Private Members' Business]
* * *
(1100)
[English]
Excise Tax Act
The House resumed from June 7 consideration of the motion that Bill C-259, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act (elimination of excise tax on jewellery), be read the third time and passed.
Ms. Diane Finley (Haldimand—Norfolk, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in favour of Bill C-259, an act that seeks the immediate elimination of the excise tax on jewellery and watches.
(1105)
It is clear from the overwhelming evidence in support for the legislation that the time has come to immediately do away with this punitive and unfair tax.
Before I proceed, I would like to take this opportunity to thank my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver Island North, for his very hard work and dedication to doing away with this excise tax. The member's perseverance in this regard should be commended.
Increased economic development in my riding of Haldimand—Norfolk is my top priority. Conversely, anything that negatively impacts on economic development is something that worries me. This excise tax has had the effect of unfairly stifling economic development, not only for many businesses in my riding, but right across the country.
As the federal representative for these business owners who are in both retailing and manufacturing sectors, I feel that it is my duty to stand against this tax and stand in favour of this much needed and long overdue legislation. I say this because for far too long constituents in my riding and in many other rural ridings like it have felt either ignored, unfairly treated or even betrayed by the Liberal government.
The government's continued talk about the need to support cities and their increasingly crumbling infrastructure, while necessary and important, often leaves the people in my riding and other residents in rural Canada feeling like second class citizens or an afterthought of the government.
The government's recent budget and its NDP amended version are prime examples of how low a priority the government places on small town rural Canada.
The Liberal budget and the Liberal-NDP budget have nothing in them for struggling agricultural producers, not a cent for desperately needed economic development funding for Haldimand—Norfolk and not one cent of tax relief for hard-working families or for families who choose to take care of their children at home.
The budget did, however, have billions of dollars for state run day care and gas tax rebates for cities. While these may be high priorities for people in urban areas, I must say that it leaves rural residents asking what is in it for them.
The reasons that Bill C-259 merits immediate passage have been mentioned many times before but I feel that it is important to reiterate why it is so important to finally do away with this tax once and for all.
The tax was first introduced in 1918 near the end of World War I. Its main purpose was to act as a luxury tax in order to raise desperately needed funds for the government of the day. Needless to say, the tax has served its purpose and is no longer appropriate in our current context.
To quote a 2004 report by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance, this excise tax:
|
--is an anachronism that no longer serves any social-policy objectives, nor does it fulfill the qualities that should be sought in a tax: equity, efficiency, ease of administration and transparency. |
Quite simply, the tax is destroying Canadian jobs.
The 2004 report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance stated:
|
--this tax is resulting in negative consequences for employment and the viability of Canada’s jewellery industry. |
Currently, manufacturers pay an excise tax of 10% on the sale price of jewellery manufactured in Canada and importers pay an excise tax of 10% on the duty paid value of imported jewellery. To highlight how unfair this tax is, if we have an item that is manufactured outside Canada and imported into Canada and it is identical to an item manufactured in Canada, we tax the made in Canada item and do not tax the item coming from beyond our borders.
(1110)
Put simply, this tax imposes a tariff on Canadian made goods, ensuring that goods made right here at home cost more than goods that we import. This approach is not the way to build a strong economy for our country.
The negative consequences of this tax are numerous. Business bottom lines are negatively impacted, stifling growth and employment and discouraging investment. This excise tax increases the cost of financing inventory for retailers and wholesalers. It also encourages Canadians to purchase their jewellery in the United States or other countries at a much cheaper price. In addition, the advent of e-business transactions is encouraging greater numbers of Canadians to order jewellery on line from other countries because of the savings they get.
While many believe that this tax is justified because it is a luxury tax on the rich, the truth is that a large part of the tax is being collected from low value jewellery purchased by ordinary Canadians. According to Ernst & Young, lower and middle income households account for over 50% of jewellery and watch purchases.
In fact, Canadians are paying this luxury tax on real and imitation jewellery that costs more than three dollars. This hidden luxury tax on items that are of very little value is grossly unfair. As my hon. colleague from Vancouver Island North noted, about one-half of all the jewellery sold by value in Canada contains diamonds.
The province of Saskatchewan is poised to join the Northwest Territories as a world class diamond producer. The premiers who are involved in jurisdictions where diamond production is either present or contemplated are calling for the removal of this tax.
This punitive tax has had the effect of pre-empting local jewellery manufacturing. Furthermore, this tax is discouraging tourists from buying jewellery made in Canada because they know that they can get it cheaper at home.
It is important to note that the Mining Association of Canada said in May of 2004:
|
In less than a decade, Canada has emerged as a diamond powerhouse...By providing the right mix of fiscal and regulatory policies, governments have the opportunity to maximize the contribution of Canada's diamond industry to the benefit of all Canadians. |
Eliminating the federal excise tax on jewellery will help Canada become one of the world's leaders in diamond manufacturing.
I recognize that the government has announced a planned phase-out of this tax in the recent budget. While I am happy that the Liberals have finally come to realize the importance of doing away with this punitive tax, I find it unfortunate that they wish to further stifle job creation, economic development and increased investment by allowing this punitive tax to continue for the next four years.
I know that old habits die hard, but I would encourage the government to give up its tax collection addiction and consider disposing of this tax immediately.
Reducing taxes encourages jobs, investment and a vibrant economy. According to a 2003 study, the jewellery industry has relatively high job creation potential. Jewellery manufacturing creates 40% more jobs per dollar than home electronics or the auto parts industry. The jewellery industry has the potential to create cottage industry jobs in remote areas and in rural areas like mine in Haldimand--Norfolk.
Bill C-259 has had widespread support from all parties in this House. It has widespread support from the jewellery and mining industries. The bill follows up on recommendations made by the House of Commons finance committee and reports by the Auditor General of Canada.
The time for this tax to be completely eliminated is now. That is why I am encouraging all members of this House to support Bill C-259.
(1115)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): Pursuant to Standing Order 93 the division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 15, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.
* * *
[Translation]
Business of the House
Hon. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, discussions have taken place between all parties concerning the efficient conduct of the business of the House. I believe you would find consent for the following motion.
[English]
|
That, should the House continue to sit until midnight today, as a result of the adoption of Government Business No. 16, no quorum calls or dilatory motions shall be entertained by the Speaker after 6 p.m. |
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
Suspension of Sitting
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): The House will now suspend until 12 noon.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 11:17 a.m.)
* * *
Sitting Resumed
(The House resumed at 12:02 p.m.)
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Government Orders]
* * *
(1200)
[English]
Budget Implementation Act, 2005
The House resumed from June 10 consideration of Bill C-43, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 23, 2005, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 2.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): The question is on Motion No. 5. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 6. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
(1205)
[Translation]
I shall now propose Motions Nos. 7 and 8 in Group No. 3 to the House.
(1210)
Hon. Ken Dryden (for the Minister of Finance) moved:
|
That Bill C-43 be amended by adding, after clause 97, the following new clause |
|
GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENT FUND |
|
GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENT FUND ACT |
|
98. The Greenhouse Gas Technology Investment Fund Act is enacted as follows: |
|
An Act to establish the Greenhouse Gas Technology Investment Fund for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and the removal of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere |
|
1. This Act may be cited as the Greenhouse Gas Technology Investment Fund Act. |
|
2. The following definitions apply in this Act. |
|
“eligible contributor” means a person who is subject to requirements — set out in regulations made under any Act of Parliament — respecting emissions of greenhouse gas from industrial sources, other than a person who is a vehicle manufacturer. |
|
“Fund” means the Greenhouse Gas Technology Investment Fund established in section 3. |
|
“greenhouse gas” means any gas listed in Annex A to the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change done at Kyoto on December 11, 1997, as amended from time to time, to the extent that the amendments are binding on Canada. |
|
“Minister” means the Minister of Natural Resources. |
|
“vehicle” means any vehicle that is capable of being driven or drawn on roads by any means other than muscular power exclusively, but does not include any vehicle designed to run exclusively on rails. |
|
GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENT FUND |
|
3. There is established in the accounts of Canada an account to be known as the Greenhouse Gas Technology Investment Fund. |
|
4. Thereshall be paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund and credited to the Fund |
|
(a) all amounts contributed to Her Majesty in right of Canada by an eligible contributor for the purpose of |
|
(i) research into, or the development or demonstration of, technologies or processes intended to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases from industrial sources or to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere in the course of an industrial operation, or |
|
(ii) creating elements of the infrastructure that are necessary to support research into, or the development or demonstration of, those technologies or processes; and |
|
(b) an amount representing interest of the balance from time to time to the credit of the account at the rate and calculated in the manner that the Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister of Finance, prescribe. |
|
5. There shall be charged to the Fund the amounts paid out under section 6. |
|
6. (1) The Minister may, out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, make grants or contributions in any amount that he or she considers appropriate for any purpose referred to in paragraph 4(a). |
|
(2) In making a grant or contribution, the Minister shall consider |
|
(a) the competitiveness and efficiency of industry; |
|
(b) the sustainable development of Canada’s natural resources; |
|
(c) the development of Canadian scientific and technological capabilities; and |
|
(d) any recommendations made by the standing committee of the House of Commons that normally considers matters related to the environment. |
|
(3) No grant or contribution may be made in excess of the amount of the balance to the credit of the Fund. |
|
7. (1) The Governor in Council shall appoint an advisory board of not more than 12 members to hold office during pleasure for a term of not more than three years, which term may be renewed for one or more further terms. |
|
(2) The role of the advisory board is to advise the Minister on any matter respecting the making of grants or contributions for any of the purposes referred to in paragraph 4(a), including the types of projects that are most likely to result in significant reductions of greenhouse gas emissions and the matters referred to in paragraphs 6(2)(a) to (d). |
|
(3) The Minister shall publish the advice given under subsection (2) within 30 days after receiving it from the advisory board. |
|
(4) The Governor in Council may appoint any person with relevant knowledge or expertise to the advisory board, including persons from industry, institutions of learning and environmental groups. |
|
(5) The Minister shall appoint one of the members as Chairperson of the advisory board. |
|
(6) The members of the advisory board are to be paid, in connection with their work for the advisory board, the remuneration that may be fixed by the Governor in Council. |
|
(7) The members of the advisory board are entitled to be reimbursed, in accordance with Treasury Board directives, the travel, living and other expenses incurred in connection with their work for the advisory board while absent from their ordinary place of residence. |
|
(8) The Chairperson may determine the times and places at which the advisory board will meet, but it must meet at least once a year. |
|
(9) The members of the advisory board are deemed to be employees for the purposes of the Government Employees Compensation Act and to be employed in the federal public administration for the purposes of any regulations made under section 9 of the Aeronautics Act. |
|
TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENT UNITS |
|
8. (1) Subject to subsections (2) to (5), the Minister must create technology investment units in respect of contributions made by eligible contributors to Her Majesty in right of Canada for any of the purposes referred to in paragraph 4(a). |
|
(2) The technology investment units are to be created in respect of a contribution by an eligible contributor in a manner that allows them to be recorded in a database established in relation to the emission requirements applicable to the eligible contributor. |
|
(3) Technology investment units may be created only in respect of contributions made on or after January 1, 2008. |
|
(4) Subject to subsection (5), the Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister of the Environment, make regulations |
|
(a) fixing the amount that must be contributed for technology investment units to be created, or the manner of calculating that amount; and |
|
(b) determining the maximum number of those units that may be created in any period specified in the regulations. |
|
(5) Until December 31, 2012, the maximum amount that may be contributed for a technology investment unit to be created may not be more than $15. |
|
(6) Technology investment units may only be used by the eligible contributor in respect of whom they were created and that eligible contributor may use them only in accordance with any regulations in force that govern the manner in which they may be used to meet requirements relating to emissions of greenhouse gases from industrial sources. |
|
That Bill C-43 be amended by adding, after Clause 97, the following new clause: |
|
99. This Part comes into force on a day to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council.” |
[English]
Ms. Rona Ambrose (Edmonton—Spruce Grove, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Motion No. 7 which is an important part of Bill C-43. I am fortunate to sit on the finance committee which examined Bill C-43 in its entirety.
The Conservative Party of Canada has agreed to and supports Bill C-43, although I am here today to make an important amendment to the main spending bill of the government.
The main purpose of Motion No. 7 is to establish legislation for the formation of a greenhouse gas technology investment fund. We on this side of the House have long advocated for a made in Canada solution to the environmental problems of our times.
In the Standing Committee on Finance we introduced many helpful amendments to improve clause 14 which is the greenhouse gas technology fund. We wanted to bring more transparency and accountability to the fund and how the proposed advisory board would operate. We successfully passed an amendment in which the minister must publish advice within 30 days and make that advice public. We are glad to see that it was supported by the other opposition parties as well.
We are still concerned about the unaccountable 12 member advisory board which does not necessarily bring back much needed trust that Canadians should have in their government.
With these various amendments in committee we wanted to depoliticize this process, so that it would not be so open ended. We are glad that we were able to bring some accountability and transparency to the greenhouse gas technology fund process. We want to see more flexibility put into the process of the greenhouse technology fund and how it is administered.
Having said that, I wish to introduce an amendment that we believe will substantially improve the greenhouse gas technology investment fund. I move:
|
That motion 7 be amended in section 8 by replacing the words “Canada for any of the purposes referred to in” with “Canada or to any fund designated by the Minister, for the purposes of this subsection, for any of the purposes referred to in” |
(1215)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): We are debating motions in Group No. 3. The member for Edmonton—Spruce Grove now has the opportunity for five minutes of questions and comments. If there are no questions and comments, we will simply resume debate with another member who wants to speak to the motion.
Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment.
Hon. Bryon Wilfert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for the record, the government supports the amendment.
(1220)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): The hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier for a question.
Mr. Guy Côté (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to discuss this motion with my Conservative colleague. The Bloc Québécois was under the impression that she needed unanimous consent in order to move the motion, and we were not prepared to give it at this time. The problem, in part, is that this amendment is far too open-ended. It gives the minister far too many opportunities to abuse this provision.
In light of our discussions, I understand the desire to give the government more flexibility in enforcing this legislation. At the same time, however, we have a number of concerns about the kinds of funds that would be created in order to allocate monies to the greenhouse gas technology investment fund.
Our question remains. Could a new foundation be created? We saw what happened with the foundations, where funds are invested but not used in the same way. The motion just moved by the member in no way prevents private funds from being used. For example, nothing would prevent an oil consortium from creating a fund.
So we are not entirely convinced that this is an acceptable motion. It gives the government a blank cheque. In our opinion, Bill C-48 is already much too open-ended and not specific enough about how the money will be spent. The member's motion would make things worse. Perhaps she can explain a bit better the spirit in which this motion was moved? However, at this time, I can say that we will not support this motion.
[English]
Ms. Rona Ambrose: Mr. Speaker, our amendment to part 14, which is Motion No. 7 before us right now that relates specifically to the creation of the greenhouse gas technology investment fund, is to allow the minister and the government to have more flexibility to create more than just the one fund that is specified right now in Bill C-43.
We believe that this is important because it will allow the minister and the government of the day to look at regional issues and industry issues that we believe will not only help the environment, but also help industry work with the government to come up with the kinds of programs that will result in not only allowing industry to be a part of this program but ensuring that all of the investments do stay here in Canada.
We pointed out in committee that it was really important to the Conservative Party that Canadian companies and Canadian jobs come first and that the Canadian environment comes first. We were concerned that the legislation might create a fund where Canadian companies might contribute only to see that money end up in the hands of their competitors. We want to ensure that the government has the flexibility to address some of the concerns that industry has raised and frankly, environmental groups have raised as well.
This is the intent of the amendment to part 14. We want to create more flexibility that will result in not only better legislation on the environmental side but also better legislation on the industry side in allowing industry to work with the government on a better environmental plan.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): We have had the opportunity to look at the amendment and it is acceptable.
[Translation]
Mr. Guy Côté (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have a few things I wish to say about part 14, which establishes the Greenhouse Gas Technology Investment Fund Act. There are a number of points it is important to raise here in the House.
This purpose of this fund is very specific: to lessen the efforts required of major emitters to meet the targets about to be imposed by the federal government in its plan relating to Kyoto.
As part of what it terms its great green plan, the federal government is committing to setting targets in partnership with the provinces and territories. Hon. members will recall that this bill is based far more on the polluter-paid than on the polluter-pay principle.
The bill establishes a fund for which the minister, of course, has responsibility. The government is thus being handed a blank cheque. This measure provides the Liberals with the powers required to control a number of important elements—such as price and number of technological investment units—without consulting the House, and without Quebec and the provinces being able to maintain their legitimate right to opt out and to administer the targets of the major emitters within their territory themselves.
This has a number of effects. I met recently with an industrialist in the Quebec City region whose business is in cement. He explained to me that, once the plan is tabled, his industry will have a great deal of difficulty meeting the government's targets. There are a number of reasons for this, including the fact that the target is set according to a percentage at a specific date. This company has already expended huge efforts in connection with its greenhouse gas emissions and has therefore greatly reduced those emissions.
Unfortunately, as is the case for many industries, there is a critical point beyond which it becomes increasingly difficult to decrease greenhouse gas emissions. What is more, given the nature of its product, the chemical processes involved in producing cement make it impossible to decrease emissions below a certain point regardless of the technology. Greenhouse gases are emitted when cement is manufactured, regardless of the technology used. Perhaps in some future world of science fiction it will be possible to reduce those emissions further, but unfortunately it is impossible at this time.
That is just one more thing the government has not taken into consideration. Rather than imposing specific reductions in terms of tonnes, the preference was to choose the option of a specific percentage at a specific date. As a result, this creates great difficulties for certain industries, some of them in Quebec.
If Quebec had had more latitude in controlling greenhouse gases, I am sure it would have better recognized the need to manage on a company to company basis and not on a pan-Canadian basis.
Under part 14, permits are tradable. I wonder how a technology investment unit system might coexist with the tradable permits system promised by the government. I sincerely hope that the amendment introduced by the hon. member from the Conservative Party does not pass. In addition to the factors I just listed, this will make matters even worse. As I was saying earlier, there is nothing stopping the government, at this point, from leaving Quebec out completely and letting private companies pay into the fund. The oil companies are the first example that spring to mind.
Earlier, I also mentioned that the fund was created to lessen the efforts required of major emitters. This legislation confirms the agreement reached with the automotive industry by specifying that this industry is exempt from the major emitter definition. There is nothing stopping the automotive industry from creating a fund to try to get around the few requirements of the Kyoto protocol.
From the outset it is a bad plan, which emphasizes the polluter-paid rather than the polluter-pay principle. The proposal the hon. member for Edmonton—Spruce Grove just made will make matters worse.
(1225)
We opposed this part of the bill in committee and we will do the same in the House.
(1230)
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): The recorded division on the amendment stands deferred.
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions at the report stage of the bill.
Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): At the request of the chief government whip, the divisions on the motions stand deferred to the end of government orders tomorrow.
* * *
[Translation]
Canada Border Services Agency Act
The House resumed from June 8, 2005, consideration of the motion that Bill C-26, an act to establish the Canada Border Services Agency be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate.
[English]
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.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to split his time?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Peter MacKay: 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.
(1235)
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.
(1240)
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.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the words of my colleague in his reflection on the legislation that is before us. Over the number of years that I have been here, along with other colleagues in my party, I have had the opportunity to travel to many border crossing across the country, from Victoria all the way out to Halifax.
One issue that came up time and again was the number of people assigned to enforce border security. The RCMP in particular had a certain function and I can give an anecdotal account in British Columbia. Four RCMP officers were assigned to cover the border from Victoria to the Alberta border 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It is impossible, ultimately, to do that. That was about two and a half years ago and I do not think anything much has changed since then.
We have heard a lot of talk ever since 9/11 about increasing border security and cracking down on individuals crossing both ways but we have not seen any major increase in personnel on the borders nor specific training. As my colleague mentioned, the officers who are charged with this duty are not armed and they should be armed because there are more dangerous people out there than there ever has been before.
Does my colleague have any recent knowledge about what the Liberal government has done to truly beef up security at the borders, if anything? I know there has been a lot of talk on the other side but just what has changed?
(1245)
Mr. Peter MacKay: 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.
(1250)
Mr. Guy Lauzon (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this important debate on Bill C-26. The bill would finally make official the creation of a consolidated border services agency that would bring together roles previously filled by many agencies with respect to immigration, customs, air travel, passports and so forth.
The new agency would be responsible for ensuring that people, goods and services coming into Canada are safe. Clearly, this would be an extremely important agency and one which would have far-reaching powers and responsibilities.
[Translation]
The agency will be responsible as well for certain technological projects intended to improve our security and speed up the flow of goods across the border between Canada and the United States.
The Conservative Party supports many of these ideas, including the smart border initiative introduced three and a half years ago. We also support FAST, the free and secure trade program, which is intended to facilitate the movement of approved goods across the border and NEXUS, which will facilitate the movement of low risk individuals.
[English]
Creating a consolidated border services agency is an important part of establishing the conditions needed for real improvement in our border security, but this bureaucratic reorganization will mean nothing unless it is accompanied by better controls, more resources and more personnel who are better trained and equipped. The government has been shuffling along, dragging its feet on this file for too long. The main reason for the lackadaisical approach seems to be that it allows the government to continually reannounce the same initiative as if it were something new.
The government is famous for reannouncing its initiatives to maximize the media impact. The government announces a fancy program and then does nothing until it sees an opportunity to reannounce it. I understand from the newspaper this morning that will be the Liberal plan for the summer.
We see the same thing in agriculture, an area that is very important to my riding of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry. Year after year the government makes ad hoc announcements that some inadequate amount of money will be given to farmers to help them cope with BSE and foreign subsidies and the other challenges they face. These announcements are always accompanied by promises that real transformation is on the way, but there is no follow through. Year after year nothing changes, except that a few more farmers lose their fingernail hold on solvency and are forced off the land. Too often the money that is promised never makes it into the hands of those who need it.
My party would like to see the government turn some of its wonderful announcements into real progress for a change. The Conservative Party wants to increase the number of personnel protecting our borders. We want to increase their training and powers. We want to give them the tools and technology they need to do their job well.
[Translation]
That is a problem at all levels of the Canadian security system, whether it be customs, immigration, correctional services, the RCMP or the armed forces. We are allowing resources to disappear, and our personnel is being overextended.
[English]
Recently we received the news that our American neighbours are placing further restrictions on Canadians crossing the border into the U.S. For the first time in history all Canadians will be required to carry passports. Why is this unprecedented restriction being placed on the mobility of Canadian citizens? Because the government has failed to satisfy our neighbours that Canada can be trusted to properly screen people and products passing through our country into the United States.
An independent multilateral task force recommended that Canada, the U.S. and Mexico should share a common biometric border pass that would allow smoother passage through customs, immigration and airport security, while ensuring the security of our shared continental perimeter. The U.S. has been working on biometric border control technologies since the September 11 terrorist attacks. In fact, the U.S. has taken many concrete steps to protect its own border while Canada has lagged far behind.
Apparently the U.S. has now decided that it cannot keep waiting for our government to do its part to enhance the security of our shared continent, so it is leaving us behind. There is no indication that things will improve for Canadians who depend on cross-border travel. The very same day the U.S. told Canadians we would need passports to cross the border, the Auditor General told us that the government is failing to properly control the issuance of Canadian passports. No wonder our neighbours are getting frustrated with us. Even requiring Canadian travellers to carry passports will not offer the security assurances it should.
The restructuring provisions contained in this bill will mean nothing unless we also fix the very basic problems of our border controls. We hear horror stories about officers working alone at border crossings, technical problems with communications tools and lack of information about people with criminal records or outstanding warrants. Border officers do not even carry firearms. This combination of problems leaves our borders and border officers very vulnerable.
Our ocean ports and waterways along our border are perhaps the weakest link in our border security system. Anything from illegal immigrants to sex slaves or dirty bombs can come into this country undetected. We inspect less than 3% of the containers coming into our major ports. We have a longer coastline than any other country in the world and our navy and Coast Guard are woefully inadequate to patrol the coastline.
My own riding of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry includes a major border crossing, the Seaway International Bridge in the city of Cornwall. While legitimate traffic crosses the border over the bridge, there is very little standing in the way of illegitimate traffic that crosses the border below the bridge and speedboats that cross the St. Lawrence River under the cover of darkness.
The aboriginal community of Akwesasne which straddles the Canada-U.S. border has suffered greatly as a result of this illegal cross-border activity. Sadly, the decent law-abiding majority of the people of Akwesasne live in the shadow of a small, prosperous criminal element. This poses all kinds of security concerns for the people of the community. It also entices the youth of Akwesasne to give up their schooling to get involved in illegal activities. This activity also creates problems for the city of Cornwall itself. As illegal drugs and smuggled goods pass through the city, some of them stay and cause social and economic problems.
I recently met with representatives from the Canadian Professional Police Association to discuss this problem and others. I assure everyone that this is not the last the House will hear from me on this very issue.
(1255)
[Translation]
The Auditor General's report also pointed to significant shortcomings in Canada's anti-terrorist preparedness, for example, inadequate inspections at airports and a lack of preparation in the event of a terrorist attack.
The government's first task is to protect the security of its territory and the safety of its citizens. The current Liberal government, however, is too preoccupied by the scandals to assume this responsibility.
[English]
I will join my Conservative colleagues in supporting this legislation because it is a small step in the right direction, but I hope my colleagues opposite do not take that to mean we support their overall approach to border security, which continues to be a frightful failure. We on this side of the House will continue to push the government for real action to plug the gaping holes in our border security system.
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP): Madam Speaker, I am certainly no fan of the way the government has handled this file by any means.
The member mentioned that Canadians will need passports to get into the United States, but he forgot to mention that American citizens themselves will need passports to get back into the United States. Complications will arise in terms of tourism in our country. I would like the members comments.
(1300)
Mr. Guy Lauzon: Madam Speaker, my colleague is right in assuming that this is going to cause some real problems with tourism. The border communities depend greatly on tourism from our American neighbours. We encourage them to visit our wonderful country.
Yes, this is going to cause another problem. It will be a disincentive for American tourists to visit our country. That is what will happen if we let things get to that point. The Americans just do not trust our security systems, our border systems. They have had to go so far as to insist that we need passports to get into their country, but Americans visiting our country need passports to re-enter their country as well.
I share my hon. colleague's concerns. Hopefully we can encourage the government to take this problem very seriously.
[Translation]
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-26, an act to establish the Canada Border Services Agency. I will take this opportunity to read the summary of the bill found on the back of the first page.
|
This enactment establishes the Canada Border Services Agency, which was first created by order in council on December 12, 2003. The Agency brings together the border services of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. The enactment sets out the responsibilities, mandate, powers, duties and functions of the Minister responsible for the Agency and its President. It continues the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency under the name of the Canada Revenue Agency and contains transitional provisions as well as consequential amendments to other Acts. |
From the outset, I also want to share with you the position of the Bloc Québécois, which is in favour of Bill C-26. We were also in favour of it at second reading. However, we have some major concerns over two aspects. In other words, we will be closely monitoring its application, at third reading and during all subsequent discussions. There are two points that bother us.
The first point is the transfer of major functions from Citizenship and Immigration Canada to the Border Services Agency that is being created. In our opinion, this transfer could jeopardize the protection of the rights of immigrants and refugees.
The second point that we will be monitoring is the right to collect, retain, use and disclose of information that this agency possesses under the application of the act and, finally, the agreements that could be reached with other entities and other countries.
I will take the time to fully explain these factors that are highly important to us and that we will be monitoring in the legislative process of this bill in this House. We must always pay attention to the inconsistencies in speeches by the Liberal Party of Canada.
At the same time as this agency is being created, RCMP detachments in Quebec are being closed. At the same time that the federal government wants to create an agency to oversee the arrival of immigrants in Canada, it is closing nine RCMP detachments—which were staunchly defended by my colleagues in the House, both those affected and not affected by this legislation. Why? Because there is no double talk from us. We do not want to create, in new legislation, an agency to protect our jurisdiction from immigrants, while ignoring the need for border protection.
We must not forget that there are over 100 unguarded roads in Quebec. That is the reality. These roads used to be guarded, in part, by local RCMP detachments. And I am not even mentioning the ports. Earlier, someone said that, in some areas, 30% to 60% of containers are not inspected, not to mention individuals who may enter via our waterways.
So there is always double talk coming from the federal Liberals. They want to show that they run a big safe country, but they are slashing security services. That is the message the Liberals have sent us, particularly by closing nine detachments. Obviously, these are regional detachments, but they are in strategic locations: Lac Mégantic, Granby, Coaticook, Saint-Hyacinthe, Joliette, Roberval, Baie-Comeau, Rivière-du-Loup and Îles-de-la-Madeleine. These were all strategic detachments in terms of the arrival of individuals, immigrants and goods.
The government wants to create an agency, but clearly its focus will not be on customs officers. Furthermore, it will decide to eliminate all RCMP detachments in a jurisdiction as large as Quebec in order to prevent the smuggling of goods and, sometimes, humans. So this is double talk from the Liberal Party. Ultimately, this can be very confusing.
(1305)
Some may find this extremely annoying. It is most disconcerting to see how the Liberal Party can do both one thing and its exact opposite. It has become an expert at that. It tables a bill to create the Canada Border Services Agency. By so doing, it is trying to tell the Americans “That way, we will be better able to monitor the entry of individuals”. Obviously, that is, provided they enter at border posts. They can of course enter at many other spots because RCMP officers have been removed from a number of places in Quebec and elsewhere. There will be no more RCMP stationed in the regions, so anyone wanting to get into Canada illegally need only avoid the official crossing points and take one of the hundreds of highways or cross by water. That is the Liberal Party's reality.
This is a problem for the nine communities I have referred to, which used to feel safe. I will take the time to list them again: Lac-Mégantic, Granby, Coaticook, Saint-Hyacinthe, Joliette — that is, Saint-Charles-Borromée —, Roberval, Baie-Comeau, Rivière-du-Loup and Îles-de-la-Madeleine. These all had the reassurance of an RCMP presence but the detachments are being moved.
Obviously, the RCMP Commissioner has admitted the risks. The problem is that there was insufficient manpower to keep these regional detachments manned. There was no money for it, yet the government has found money to create a new agency. More public servants, more red tape, which will of course be concentrated elsewhere than where the need is along the border. That is the reality.
We have trouble dealing with this two-sided Liberal strategy. They say they are going to step up security while, at the same time, they make cuts. That is what they have done in Quebec, and now they are going to create this agency.
We want to play fair, and will state right now that the Bloc Québécois is in favour of the agency's creation, provided individual rights are respected. This is our first hesitation. The second concerns the information that will be kept by agency employees and can be shared with other bodies. There must be an assurance that no personal information will be involved and that the individual interests of citizens will be protected.
To conclude this aside, I wanted to point out the dichotomy of the Liberal message. The Liberal Party wants to create an agency to ensure security and to prevent individuals and immigrants from entering Canada in a manner that puts the public at risk. However, this same party has decided to close nine regional RCMP detachments in Quebec. Obviously, we can do nothing but criticize that.
To return to Bill C-26, it must be said that the Canada Border Services Agency was created on December 12, 2003. It is now comes under the Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness portfolio. When it was created, the role of Citizenship and Immigration Canada in information matters was unclear. Considerable criticism was levelled in this regard.
In order to calm fears, the Prime Minister said that Citizenship and Immigration Canada would remain responsible for immigration policy in order to protect the interests of immigrants and refugees. He felt the need, therefore, at that point to say that care had to be taken and the agency not given free rein. They would leave what Citizenship and Immigration Canada was responsible for. He did not make this statement just anywhere. He made it in the United States on December 13, 2003, at a conference he was taking part in and during his discussions with American homeland security.
Still, while he felt the need to announce the agency in December 2003, it was not until 2004 that it was established. Today, they are tabling the bill. Again, the message is the urgency in resolving security. The Liberal Party is always prepared. The problem is that things take a lot of time, given the wavering Prime Minister, Mr. Dithers, as some foreign observers have called him. From this bill, we see once again that no decision had been made and that all the time needed was taken. Therefore, the urgency of security matters has become so pressing with time that they introduced the bill.
I will read the text from the Internet site of the agency, which was established and began operations in October.
(1310)
|
The CBSA provides an essential service as the first line of defence in managing the movement of people and goods into and out of Canada. All people and goods entering Canada, whether by air, land or sea, must report to the CBSA at a port of entry. With a workforce of approximately 11,000 public servants, the CBSA operates at 1,369 service points across Canada and 39 locations abroad. At some of its busiest locations, the CBSA operates on a 24/7 basis. |
|
Among the threats addressed by the CBSA are terrorism; illegal migration; illegal trade of weaponry, drugs and unsafe goods and foodstuffs; and the attempted introduction of contaminants and threats to public health. The CBSA is also mandated to prevent the admission into Canada of persons involved in war crimes or crimes against humanity, to assist in combating money laundering, and to conduct the detention and removal from Canada of inadmissible persons. |
Obviously that is the message from the agency. However, it does not say that in order to ensure this is respected and to be able to address terrorist threats, the people, with their goods, must declare themselves to the CBSA's service points. I mentioned that earlier. In Quebec, there are over 100 side roads that are not monitored and for which there are no agency service points.
That is what led the RCMP commissioner to close nine regional detachments in Quebec. The agency is clear on this. It provides protection by land and sea. That is all well and good, provided the individuals and goods go through the agency's ports of entry.
The problem is that the land is so vast that there are goods that enter elsewhere than by the service points. That is where the problem lies with the inconsistencies of the Liberal Party. It is creating an agency to prevent terrorism in our land, or threatening goods or people from entering Canada, as long as those people choose to cross the border under big signs that say, “Enter here”.
The other problem is that there are many places where people can enter Canada that are not covered by service points. The Liberal government decided to close nine RCMP detachments responsible for guarding the entire area not covered by the service points. So this is the message the Liberal Party sent. It will live with the consequences in Quebec, as far as we are concerned.
Bill C-26 will make the Canada Border Services Agency responsible for the following: examinations at ports of entry to ensure that individuals are admissible and comply with Canadian laws and regulations; the arrest, detention and removal of migrants considered inadmissible; establishing policies respecting the enforcement of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act; establishing policies on the inadmissibility of migrants on grounds of security, organized criminality or violating human or international rights; deciding whether an immigrant who meets the inadmissibility criteria can be exempt for lack of a threat to Canada's security; ensuring payment of duties and taxes; and identifying and intercepting goods prescribed as high risk at airports, border stations and ports.
It confers powers on the minister and the governor in council. That is why the Bloc Québécois supports this agency in principle. We agree in principle, as we strongly support maintaining an RCMP presence, particularly in the nine regional detachments that were closed.
The Bloc Québécois would have preferred that more officers were assigned to these detachments—instead of seeing them closed—in order to guarantee the safety of Quebec and Canada. That has been the message of the Bloc Québécois MPs. We will support Bill C-26, and we support maintaining and reopening the regional detachments in order to have more RCMP officers in Quebec. That was the Bloc's message in order to counter any threats to our borders, by sea, land, air and rail.
We want to be able to ensure a high level of security throughout the land, at any and all ports of entry. That was not the message the Liberals sent when they decided to close nine RCMP detachments in Quebec. With this bill, they are saying they want to protect our ports of entry with signs and beacons marked “Enter here” and “This way into Canada”.
(1315)
That is how the Liberal Party chose to react. It wants to increase security at entry points. It is not its problem, however, if over 100 roads in Quebec are not supervised and if there are no designated entry points and if people can gain entry the entire length of the St. Lawrence, from the coast and elsewhere. The Liberal Party decided it did not have enough money. The commissioner said, in committee, that he was aware of the danger, but lacked the money to ensure security. To say one thing and then the opposite is the watchword of the Liberal Party. Indecision and inconsistency best describe the behaviour of the Prime Minister, whom foreign observers call Mr. Dithers.
That is the way things are. We have to live with it in this House, because we have to vote on this bill. In fact, we support Bill C-26, but we have to mention that the Liberal Party, even if it seems to want to increase security at selected points, has decided to reduce security where proper entry points have not been established. That is the message from the Liberal Party.
We have two comments, not negative ones, but they explain why we will keep a close eye on Bill C-26. One concerns the protection of refugees' rights. Clearly, we reject the principle that claimants must initially be considered potential threats to the country's security. Even on the website, they consider everyone a threat. We have a very hard time accepting that. Men and women want to immigrate to Canada, to settle here. It is not true that every person who enters should be considered a potential threat to the country's security.
This is why we want a fair process, not exclusionary thinking. We really want people to be treated fairly. Men and women who decide to enter Canada, who want to live in Quebec or elsewhere in Canada should be considered full citizens from the outset, having standards to meet and certain checks to be run on them. However, they must not be considered potential threats right off.
For the moment, the staff will be former immigration officers. We are in favour of that. In future, however, is there not a risk that the agency may hire people with a mentality of exclusion, whose background will mainly have been in investigation, deportation, harassment and terrorism issues? That is one of our main concerns. The initial premise is that anyone can constitute a potential threat. It is all very well to use officers who were already there, and doing a good job, and whose main criterion was to consider anyone wanting to migrate to Canada to be people with full rights. Would there not, however, be a danger when new people are hired, who may start off with a mentality of exclusion, of seeing anyone wishing to migrate to Canada as a potential threat? Instead of trying to make things easier, while requiring them to make the standard checks, the aim is to have them consider these individuals as a potential threat and to carry out an investigation. This leaves a potential for deportation and harassment in order to make sure no mistakes are made, given the ongoing threat of terrorism.
We feel it is important for the human rights of those entering Canada to be respected at all times. The Bloc Québécois can be counted on to be a watchdog over the federal Liberal government, which always has this habit of talking out of both sides of its mouth.
There is one final point I would like to raise concerning disclosure of information. We want to be sure that the way the agency collects, maintains, uses and shares information is fully respectful of individual rights and freedoms, because this information can be passed on to agencies in other countries.
(1320)
We need to be extremely vigilant about how the rights and freedoms of individuals are respected.
[English]
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP): Madam Speaker, prior to beginning my remarks I would ask for unanimous consent to split my time with the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh. I believe all parties have agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Brian Masse: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I want to begin my remarks on Bill C-26 by highlighting the importance of this bill in terms of moving forward with more official resources, which I hope will come for our border services at the end of the day. When I say that, I mean it in the context of the men and women who defend our border on a daily basis. I believe they have not had adequate support or legislation to deal with some of the complex problems they deal with in today's world.
I want to at least outline a few important items that the public should know about Bill C-26. This bill will bring together under one umbrella organization the services of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration .
I do not have the time to go into all the details of Bill C-26 and the different departments, but I do want to highlight the importance of this bill for ordinary Canadians. We have often heard, as we have today, the debate about Canada being a threat to the United States in terms of the border.
This perception has been perpetuated even by some U.S. elected representatives, such as Hillary Clinton. She continues to talk, erroneously, about some of the terrorists of 9/11 obtaining access to the United States from Canada. That is not true. It is something that I am greatly offended by because it is not the truth and it also hurts our relationship with the U.S. It should be noted that these terrorists acquired passports from the U.S. itself.
We need to note this because we have many security issues on our side of the border, but we need to talk about the facts. At present on a daily basis there is approximately a billion dollars in trade in the form of goods and services between Canada and the United States. We also have a strong socio-cultural history, in which bonds of friendship, family and prosperity for both nations have developed. When we have the other erroneous elements thrown into the pot, they make things very complicated.
Let me point out that since September 11, 2001, we have seen a significant change on our border. There were problems prior to 9/11. I represent the riding of Windsor West. I can tell members that there already was a significant tie-up of trucks and cargo because of the lack of infrastructure from this government in the past decade. The problem has certainly been seen on the streets of the city of Windsor through more profound effects since September 11. Even the United States side did not have proper staffing.
In past decade the United States will actually have had a 30-fold increase of officers on its border. To put all the blame on the Canadian side is not fair and is certainly not accurate. We need to make sure we understand that this is going to be reciprocal and that we are tied to it enough in destiny.
As well, we hear a lot about our security risks in the United States, but it does work both ways. Let me point to a recent case in Windsor. Brian Bolyantu was killed on the streets of Windsor when an American citizen who had a long record with the law was accidentally let into this country. I do not want to get into the details of the case because it is going through a lawsuit, but tragically, the family has lost Brian because there was a mistake made at the border. It shows the danger that we are faced with.
In fact, a year or so before this case, Lori Bishop, a citizen of Niagara Falls and a mother, was going about her daily activities when there was a car chase through the Niagara Falls area by the Michigan state police. The chase came onto Canadian soil. The chase, which was broken off shortly after crossing the border, led to her death.
There is more. There is the case of Mohammed Charafeddine. He was shot by an American citizen who, once again, had a long history of infractions and a number of different criminal offences but was let into our country.
This is not a problem about nations. This is a problem about people who are undesirable on both sides of the border. Both countries must protect themselves from these people. We must make sure that these individuals do not gain access to our countries. At the same time, the fact is that we have to keep our borders prosperous through the movement of goods and services.
(1325)
An issue that has not been addressed too much to date is the issue of passports. One change is that the United States has introduced a western hemisphere bill. It is going to final analysis. The American bill will require that every citizen entering the United States have a passport. As well, American citizens will have a passport.
Since that is coming we are actually making submissions to the House of Representatives to make sure that we can get an exemption if possible, but regardless of that, we wanted to make sure there is going to be accountability in this country because we have seen the lack of support for our border services people.
I filed a motion in the House of Commons the day after this came forward. It states:
|
That the House call upon the government to conduct an audit of the Passport Office to ensure that Canadians can acquire passports at the lowest possible cost and that passport processing fees do not generate surplus revenues. |
We are trying to ensure that there is going to be an auditing process to make sure that Canadians can get passports at a relatively decent price, that the services are going to be there and also that there is going to be accountability. If the Canadian passport is not going to be seen as a document that can be trusted or protected, we are going to encounter further difficulties. That is why it is important to have a full audit of the office in terms of its practices.
The effects on our tourism industry will be huge. For example, right now a Canadian passport for a family of four with two teenagers costs approximately $218. For an American family of four with two teenagers, passports will cost $274. To enter and exit between our countries for vacations, personal time and family time is going to require an extra investment in time.
It is important to note this, because when we talk about the safety of our border and the way it works in our economy, this could have detrimental effects on everything from local communities that rely on restaurants and entertainment, for example, to employment opportunities. For my community, I know that the United States and Michigan rely heavily upon Canadian nurses and doctors, as well as a number of other health care professionals, to make sure that they have the proper people for their hospitals. It is important that we continue to have relatively easy access to a certain degree, with security, so people can get to and from work without being hindered.
One of the issues in regard to the border is the perception of the problems that we have related to infrastructure and also accountability. Bill C-26 is an improvement, but we still are lacking, which is why the government has introduced Bill C-44. It is from the transport department and calls for greater scrutiny.
For example, in my riding, there is no border authority in Windsor. There is nothing that oversees the most important trade corridor in North America and probably the world. In fact, a private American citizen owns the border. A private American citizen owns the Ambassador bridge, which controls about a third of the Canada economy, and literally has the entire Canadian economy at a standstill if there is a problem on the border. There is no oversight whatsoever of this border infrastructure. There is no public authority similar to Blue Water or the one in Sarnia.
There is one in Fort Erie and there is in Niagara Falls, but we have been left because, quite frankly, these others have been very influential in terms of lobbying, I believe, to ensure that they are going to have the structures and the tools available to them to have political pressure to avoid accountability.
I have tabled two motions in the House of Commons to create a border authority in Windsor because we have two private proponents that are seeking the next crossing, which is unusual. We have 24 crossings between Canada and the United States, with 22 held by the public sector and only two privately held. They are the Fort Frances international bridge and the Ambassador bridge in Windsor. Ironically, they have the highest rates for car passengers as well as trucks. There is also less accountability. That is why we need this legislation.
Let me conclude by saying that it is important for Bill C-26 to have the proper supports for our customs officers. Mr. Ron Moran was bang on when he presented to the Senate committee and at other hearings when he talked about the fact that we need to have an armed presence at the border. I believe that. It could be a tactical support group, which would ensure that we have greater security and greater trade with the United States.
(1330)
Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP): Madam Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague for his interesting insights into the border issues that we have in the country. There is a lot of rhetoric that is thrown around the House, particularly from the government benches about the importance of trade, the need for increased trade, and the fluidity of trade.
The member spoke about the increased incursion of private interests into our border, particularly around the bridges and the lack of government action with respect to having the proper infrastructure in place so that we can move these goods.
It is one thing for a business to establish itself and set itself up as a successful venture, break into the American or Mexican markets, and then only be stopped at the last minute at the border and have huge delays at the border, thereby preventing the Canadian economy from growing and those workers from having sustainable jobs.
I wonder if the member could comment specifically on why we hear the rhetoric at one end, but when the rubber hits the road, as it were, and it is time to invest in our border services and move goods across the border, the government has been dragging its heels for so long and for so many bad reasons.
Mr. Brian Masse: Madam Speaker, it is absolutely incredible that the country has missed the boat, so to speak, on infrastructure. Sadly, since 1997, when I was on Windsor City council at that time, we have literally begged the government to do something for infrastructure and especially the border to create the capacity expansion and put in place the oversight necessary for our economy.
Quite frankly, a third of the Canadian economy is dependent upon four lanes on a private bridge between Canada and the United States. That makes no sense whatsoever. It is important to recognize that at certain points in time the country needs to invest in itself. Liberals have been taking shortcuts for years as well as Conservatives on infrastructure.
I would point to highway 407 in Toronto as a specific example. There we saw an investment by the people of the day ending up being fleeced.That infrastructure was privatized and let go without the proper return and also leaving a legacy of debt as a burden on the users.
Infrastructure investment is very important. It creates jobs in Canada. It uses a lot of Canadian aggregate. It pays a lot of taxes back into the system. More importantly, it provides the redundancy and the capacity expansion necessary for entrepreneurs and businesses to be successful.
What is interesting about the situation in Windsor is the fact that we want to continue to operate the border as a profit zone and a middleman at the expense of small and medium sized businesses which is unacceptable. Why would we want to add that extra level of profit for absolutely no reason whatsoever when the infrastructure itself will provide a return at the end of the day for the community and the country? We expect to have to add another type of expense for small and medium sized businesses that have to pay higher fees to get to the markets in which they want to be successful. They will have to compete with their American counterparts often at lower wages and often at lower environmental and other standards. It depends in which area they are competing.
I do not know why the government cannot get its head around the case in Windsor and provide a new piece of infrastructure that is publicly owned and operated. One that would pay a dividend back to this country, relieve the tax burden for the long term and address the security issue which is trumping everything else in the United States right now.
Security is enhanced by public ownership because the accountability is there. We ensure our inspections as well as our infrastructure investment is paid for in perpetuity as opposed to going into someone else's pocket.
It has been interesting in Windsor. The owner of that operation now has bought up all kinds of property in the Fort Erie and Niagara area, so that it can have the next crossing there and it is buying along the Windsor area. Because the government has dithered, it has allowed speculation and lobbying to rule the day on 90% of our trade going to the United States. That is unacceptable.
The government needs to say strongly and convincingly that our border is not a profit zone. It is a conduit for trade and social prosperity between our two nations, as it should be.
(1335)
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—Tecumseh, NDP): Madam Speaker, as we can tell from the comments of the member that just spoke, he is quite passionate about the subject, a passion which I share, because of the impact that the border has on our economy in the Windsor-Essex county area and on the livelihood of so many of our people. A good deal of that livelihood is being threatened at this point to a great degree because of inaction on the part of the government.
Specifically, the bill is part of an overall strategy by the government to consolidate services into one super ministry under the Minister for Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. This is just one component of it. With this particular bill, which all parties agreed was an appropriate step for the government to take, we are consolidating the customs program, the customs investigations and appeal functions, and the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency. We are taking part of that agency, bringing in the intelligence interdiction and enforcement program, including ports of entry from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, and finally the inspection of ports of entry and the Canada Food Inspection Agency.
The NDP has been willing to support this because we believe it is important to focus attention on our border crossings and our ports of entry. All too often in the past, because these programs have been somewhat isolated within their respective departments, there has not been enough attention paid to the issues with regard to ports of entry. With regard to the security at ports of entry, and at the rest of the border crossings, a secure but efficient methodology must ensure that cargo and passengers are able to move back and forth without undue hindrance. This development, in terms of bringing this together, makes good practical sense.
When the bill came before the justice subcommittee, all parliamentarians sitting on that committee felt reasonably comfortable with it, but there were some amendments. I want to touch on those briefly.
One of them affected the reporting function. Although there was a modest reporting function, by the amendment that we introduced and passed in the subcommittee, we strengthened the responsibility of the minister to report. As we will see in a few minutes, when I conclude my speech, that is an important factor, and the need to strengthen it was equally important.
The other point that raised some concern with the employees at the border was that they were defined under the Criminal Code as peace officers. As a result of a decision that I believe came out of my region of the country, the charges that the employees at the border might lay under various pieces of legislation on a number of occasions had been challenged as to their capacity to lay those charges. In a couple of cases the charges were actually dismissed on what was seen as a technical problem.
The employees had been asking the government for the last five to seven years to amend the section of the Criminal Code, so it would be clear they had the responsibility and the jurisdiction to lay the charges. The government had not done that when the bill was introduced originally. The public service employees came forward with a very clear, concise and obviously persuasive argument as to the need for this amendment. It was taken up by all members of the committee, including, finally, the government members, and the amendments were moved, supported unanimously and passed. It is now in the bill which, with support from all parties, will pass and their job will become a little easier.
As an aside on this point, there has been an ongoing debate between the public service employees at the border, arguing that in a number of cases they need to have greater security for themselves.
(1340)
We have heard of many incidents at border crossings where individual members were positioned there by themselves. There have been several incidents where people have suffered ill health and had no one to assist them. There have been other occasions where there were very clear security threats to them and they had no meaningful backup at all.
There is an ongoing debate as well as to whether border crossing guards should be armed. At this point they are not allowed to carry firearms in spite of some clear cases where that would have been of some benefit to them.
To be clear on this point I must say that this debate has been raised by employees themselves. A number of them have not been trained or properly prepared to carry firearms whereas others have. This is going to be an ongoing debate. A case just came down from the federal court with respect to wardens in our national parks and it may have some impact on this issue. We may be moving to that at some stage in the near future.
By consolidating the departments and more specifically these programs, we are going to have clearer information because we will get annual reports from the minister. We will be able to focus our attention on the actual issues confronting us at our border crossings and ports of entry. I hope and expect that an inevitable result of this consolidation will be greater security and more efficient use of our border crossings to move both cargo and passengers.
With regard to arming border guards and the security issue, major work still needs to be done. We hear reports that some containers coming in at our ports of entry on both the east and west coasts are not being inspected. A very small percentage are in fact inspected. This is worrisome from a terrorist standpoint because inspections are minimal. This issue must be addressed. Once this consolidation is fully in place and functioning, the government will see the need to provide additional services of a security nature at our ports of entry.
As we heard from the member for Windsor West, the border crossing between Windsor and Detroit is the busiest one in the country. It could be argued that it may be the busiest crossing of any place in the world as far as cargo is concerned. In spite of that fact, we cannot get the government to address a number of issues that confront our community.
There is a major issue concerning whether we need an additional crossing, and there seems to be overwhelming evidence that we do. However, the government has been extremely slow in responding to that need. That is having a major impact particularly on the auto industry, but generally on the manufacturing industry.
This is not just an issue with regard to the Windsor-Essex county area. We have heard substantive evidence about problems with regard to moving manufactured goods across our border and the backlogs this is creating. There are backlogs throughout all of southern Ontario, right into Quebec and all the way back to Montreal.
We expect these issues to be addressed in a much more efficient and responsible manner than they have in the past. We expect that the additional resources that are required to meet our security needs at our ports of entry and border crossings will be forthcoming in geographic areas like the Windsor-Detroit area. We expect that an additional crossing, when needed, will be addressed much more rapidly than it has been historically.
The NDP will be supporting Bill C-26. However, we will be watching the outcome once it is in place to see how these programs are functioning and we will be pressing very hard for them to be expanded.
(1345)
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to hear that the New Democratic Party will be supporting the bill.
Those who have been following the debate will know that there is an inextricable link between the movement of economic goods and services as well as security issues. It would seem to me that as we move into more stringent security provisions, this must necessarily involve some additional work or scrutiny, or possible delays on the economic side.
We have a situation where it is not just enough to complain about a problem. Rather we must look for that appropriate balance between the security needs which must be in place for us to deal with the challenges we are facing these days and the steps that can be taken to improve the flow of goods and services.
I know the member is very knowledgeable about the area as it is his home area and the initiatives that have been talked about from time to time, such as having secure yards where trucks could get pre-cleared, to help with the delays that are caused simply by the enormous amount of truck traffic, not only from Ontario but substantively from Quebec. This causes some concern because to disrupt the economy of Canada is also a form of terrorism.
I would be very interested to hear whether the member is satisfied that proper discussion has gone on with regard to those reasonable steps that can be taken to ensure a smooth flow of economic goods and services.
Mr. Joe Comartin: Madam Speaker, overall we are not satisfied with the response.
The cabinet member who is now the Minister of Foreign Affairs was in Windsor. We were having a meeting with representatives for both sides of the border. I remember raising with them that the big issue right then was the need for the U.S. side to expand the number of gates into the U.S. side. The American side was way behind what Canada was doing at that point in terms of providing the proper services at the border crossings to allow the free flow of goods at the same time as providing security.
I agree with my friend from Mississauga South that there is a need for balance. There have certainly been times that we in the Windsor area in particular have felt that the security demands from the U.S. side were unreasonable. On a number of occasions we have been able to convince them to take a step back so that goods and passengers would flow freely.
On the basic question about whether the government's response has been as fulsome as it should have been, I said in my opening comment that I did not think so. I am going to use as an example the provision of a ferry service that we have in the Windsor area. There is litigation going on about this right now which may be close to being settled finally, but even before 9/11 we had set up a system that allowed the bridge company, which is a private company, to receive customs services for free. It is not charged anything.
On the other hand, the ferry service is being charged a per vehicle cost in order to have customs and border security people at the crossing. It is a small company in comparison with the bridge, which is a huge corporation, but the government has refused a simple change in the regulations that would make it possible for customs people to be there, to move vehicles across in an efficient way without costing the service that amount of money. That service would be a good alternative to deal with some of the backlog at the bridge and the tunnel in the Windsor area. The government has refused to follow through on that.
With regard to the member's other question as to marshalling guards, that has been considered. It was proposed by the former mayor of Windsor. It has never been taken up by the government and it still has not responded to that request.
(1350)
Mr. John Maloney (Welland, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise before the House to promote this very important piece of legislation, a bill to create an innovative border management organization that will strengthen our capacity to respond swiftly and effectively to risks and threats to our country.
Security is the cornerstone of our society. When this country was formed, our descendants made a conscious decision to establish a nation that would be founded on peace, order and good government for Canadians. Successive governments and generations of Canadians have upheld that ideal with the result that Canada has become one of the most successful countries on the earth.
[Translation]
However, the repeated and unprecedented challenges we have faced since the millennium began have identified weaknesses that could endanger our way of life.
[English]
The events of 9/11 drove home that point in a tragic but tangible way. The shocking reality is that terror knows no boundaries and respects no life. No one is immune to the damaging effects of these forces in our increasingly interconnected world. This was an especially hard lesson learned by Canadian businesses which depend on a free and open border for $2 billion daily in cross-border trade and millions of travellers who once took border crossings for granted.
To protect our citizens, economy and society, we have to better anticipate and be prepared to address any and all hazards arriving on our doorstep. Terrorism, illegal migration, organized crime and other threats must be combated. That is why the public safety and emergency preparedness portfolio was created, to bring together key national agencies dedicated to public safety, including the Canada Border Services Agency, Correctional Service of Canada, the RCMP, CSIS, the Canadian Firearms Centre and the National Parole Board.
The CBSA has been set up to build on progress already achieved since we signed the Canada-U.S. smart border declaration with our American neighbours in the aftermath of September 11. A smart border is one that makes a distinction between low risk and high risk travellers and cargo arriving at the border, letting the former move through quickly, while taking the necessary time to take a closer look at those who pose a threat.
The CBSA will accelerate this work by aligning complementary security activities previously spread among three government organizations into a single, streamlined unit. The new structure allows the agency to take a more integrated and multifaceted approach to border management to improve the quality, effectiveness and affordability of border services.
Proposed Bill C-26 will allow us to move forward with an integrated and multifaceted approach to border management, which is a key component of our national security policy. Members of the House will recall that this policy focuses on three core national security interests: protecting Canada and Canadians at home and abroad; ensuring Canada is not a base for threats to our allies; and contributing to international security.
[Translation]
Thanks to the integration of the main activities of border security and intelligence, the Canada Border Services Agency is already in a position to better protect Canadians, while facilitating the free flow of admissible persons and goods.
[English]
In less than a year since its launch, the agency has accelerated a number of progressive measures undertaken by its predecessors. For example, it has made every effort to improve border flow and to expand the NEXUS and FAST programs for pre-approved low risk travellers and commercial traffic.
FAST, the fast and secure trade program, NEXUS, and many other smart initiatives put in place in recent months and years depend on pre-screening people and cargo to separate those who pose a threat from those who do not. While the vast majority of clients comply with law and regulations, we have put in place risk management strategies to identify, detect and interdict high risk people and goods.
Pre-approval makes it possible for CBSA officers to speed up the processing of legitimate travellers and businesses with good track records, particularly those that have been pre-cleared. However, the CBSA denies the use of Canadian territory to anyone involved in terrorism or serious criminality and prevents the entry of goods, including animals, plants or food products, that threaten the safety of Canadians.
Knowing how effective this approach to border management is, the CBSA has expanded FAST to expedite the movement of low risk cargo and truck drivers. It is now in effect at 19 of the largest and highest volume land border crossings.
The NEXUS program fills the same need by simplifying land crossings for pre-approved low risk frequent travellers. It also continues to expand. By last November we had over 70,000 people registered in the program using NEXUS sites at 11 locations across the country.
The launch of the NEXUS air pilot program at the Vancouver International Airport this past November allows pre-approved travellers to clear customs and immigration in Canada or in U.S. pre-clearance by simply looking into a camera that recognizes the irises of their eyes as proof of identity.
Of concern to all constituents, we have also ensured that Canadians are exempt from the U.S. visit program. An entry and exit system has been established in the United States to record the identity of people entering or leaving the country. Canadian and American citizens are not subject to this new policy.
As well, we have established Canada's National Risk Assessment Centre, which became operational on a 24/7 basis in January 2004. We can now share automated lookouts with the U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection. The centre will also serve as the focal point for managing and coordinating national and international watch lists, including lists of lost and stolen passports and other travel documents, to stop high risk travellers upon their arrival in Canada.
Our countries have also agreed to share advance passenger information and passenger name records on high risk travellers destined for either country.
The recent budget tabled by this government provides additional funding for the container security initiative that would allow CBSA to enhance Canada's marine security program. The primary goal of the container security initiative is to protect the global trading system and to keep the trade lanes open between foreign ports and Canada by targeting and interdicting potential terrorism threats before they reach our shores.
The government has invested in the marine security initiative to ensure that Canada is meeting international standards and can harmonize our regulations with those of our global trading partners. The agency takes a multi-layered, risk based approach to security at marine ports, which includes the advance targeting of high risk vessels and goods, the use of new technology and increased cooperation with our partners.
There is much more the CBSA will do in the months ahead with the passage of this bill. In partnership with other federal departments and agencies, it will develop a new partnership of smart border initiatives involving the U.S. and Mexico and expand smart border principles around the globe.
Few issues matter more to the welfare of our nation than making sure we are ready and able to detect and respond to new and emerging threats to our society, threats that endanger the competitiveness of Canadian business as well as the health and safety of the public.
I am confident that the CBSA will be an effective first point of contact as it manages the movement of people and goods into and out of Canada. All members of this House should give this legislation speedy passage.
(1355)
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine): The member will have 10 minutes remaining at the next debate since there was no indication of the splitting of time.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[S. O. 31]
* * *
[English]
Public Service
Hon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am about to make an announcement that everyone in the House of Commons will be very proud of. Today, Cecil Oliver and Natural Resources Canada are celebrating a milestone unequalled in the history of the Government of Canada.
This year, Cecil Oliver, an employee of the department, marks his 60th year of continuous public service with the government. Mr. Oliver began his career with the Canadian Forces in 1945. In 1968 he moved to civilian work with aeronautical and technical services in the mapping services branch of what is now Natural Resources Canada.
Today, at 79 years of age, he continues his career as a senior technologist. His colleagues agree that he is an invaluable resource. In honour of long and dedicated service to Canada, Cecil received the Queen's Golden Jubilee Medal.
I ask hon. members to join me in congratulating Mr. Oliver on his outstanding record of 60 years of service to the people of Canada.
* * *
(1400)
Justice
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, CPC): Madam Speaker, citizens of Nanaimo were traumatized by the May 31 assault on an 89-year-old woman in her own home. Charged with break and enter and sexual assault is Franklin Shane Dorfer.
Dorfer was a repeat offender, convicted in 1994 after two break and enters involving elderly women, including a 71-year-old who was raped. Residents would like to know why this man was on the streets, having served only part of a seven and a half year sentence. He was released only to commit further B and Es, the latest in 2004.
Although he was not considered a good candidate for parole, Dorfer was released again. He violated his parole and a warrant had been issued for his arrest at the time of the Nanaimo attack.
Prisoners need to earn parole. Automatic statutory release needs to be scrapped. We need mandatory minimum sentences for repeat and violent offenders. We need truth in sentencing. These offenders should serve their full term.
Violent crimes against the elderly should be an aggravating factor for sentencing. More needs to be done to protect our elderly citizens and restore safety to our streets.
* * *
Canadian Diabetes Association
Hon. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I attended a juvenile diabetes fundraiser this weekend. During the winter I met with the Peterborough chapter of the Canadian Diabetes Association and toured its office. It does wonderful work in our community and country.
More than two million Canadians live with diabetes and that number will double by 2020. Escalating obesity, sedentary lifestyles and an aging population all feed the national epidemic of diabetes. Diabetes leads to heart disease, stroke, kidney disease, limb amputation and blindness. It costs over $13 billion each year. However early diagnosis, aggressive treatment and lifestyle change can stem the tide, delaying onset and even preventing the disease.
I support the Canadian Diabetes Association in all its efforts to develop a national diabetes strategy. We have supported the association in the past. Let us continue to do so. We should help those living with diabetes in every possible way. We should work to prevent and cure this disease.
* * *
[Translation]
National Public Service Week
Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Madam Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me today to draw the hon. members' attention to National Public Service Week and the generous contribution of public servants to society.
Members of the public service face many challenges. For example, it is estimated that nearly 25% of public servants are victims of psychological harassment in the workplace.
Today I want to stress the importance of passing a bill that will prevent and address psychological harassment in the workplace. Such a bill would go beyond simple policies that are based on good intentions and would provide true protection to public servants, thereby enhancing their performance.
The Bloc Québécois is anxious to see Bill C-360 passed and it wishes all public servants an excellent week.
* * *
UN Framework Convention on Climate Change
Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I wish to inform the hon. members of this House of the appointment of Jacques Bilodeau as Canada's ambassador to the Eleventh Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which will be held in Montreal from November 28 to December 9, 2005.
Mr. Bilodeau will be working with the key stakeholders at the Montreal conference on climate change as the representative of the Minister of the Environment. He will facilitate consultation with the interested parties in order to advance discussions on the development of a new plan for the post-2012 period.
Throughout his 30-plus years in the Public Service of Canada, Mr. Bilodeau has held various positions in the Department of Foreign Affairs, including that of the Prime Minister's representative during the Francophonie summit in Burkina Faso in the fall of 2004. Mr. Bilodeau's extensive background in diplomacy should help him in the successful performance of his duties.
Mr. Bilodeau has a Master's degree from the École nationale d'administration publique and a Bachelor of Arts and Science from Université Laval.
* * *
(1405)
[English]
Bridgewater Flood
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this time to call attention to all the committed and dedicated men and women from my riding of South Shore--St. Margaret's who worked tirelessly during the recent state of emergency in Bridgewater, Nova Scotia.
From May 22 to 27, heavy rain fell throughout Nova Scotia with 225 millimetres of rain falling in the Bridgewater area alone. Heavy flooding resulted, roughly 100 people were evacuated from their homes and 17 roads and 12 bridges in Lunenburg county had to be closed by the department of transportation.
I commend the volunteer fire departments and other emergency workers for their role in protecting the residents of our communities.
Emergency Measures co-ordinator, Brian Kaiser, along with dozens of professionals and volunteers, performed yeoman service in coordinating the municipal and provincial response.
To everyone involved in the response team and to all the neighbours who assisted neighbours, I extend a sincere and heartfelt bravo, good work and thank you.
* * *
Poland
Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj (Etobicoke Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this past Friday, I attended a photo exhibit dedicated to educating the public about a terrible human tragedy in Polish history.
Sixty-five years ago the Soviet army took 21,000 Polish army reserve officers prisoner after occupying eastern Poland under terms of a secret deal between Hitler and Stalin.
After rounding up these reservists, lawyers, doctors, businessmen, teachers and other professionals, the intellectual elite of Poland, the Soviets took them to various locations where they were gagged, bound, executed and buried in mass graves. The largest known mass grave of these execution sites was the Katyn forest near Smolensk, Russia.
For decades the Soviets denied they had committed this atrocity. Finally, in 1992 the Russian government handed over documents to the Polish president, Lech Walesa, showing that Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin did indeed order the massacres. Notwithstanding this evidence, Russian President Putin refuses to acknowledge the Katyn massacre.
I hope that some day all Canadians will be afforded the opportunity to learn more about this terrible crime through displays and interactive media at a prominent national museum in Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
150th Anniversary of the Town of Saint-Sauveur
Ms. Johanne Deschamps (Laurentides—Labelle, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity recently to take part in an evening launching the festivities marking the 150th anniversary of Saint-Sauveur, a town known for its exceptional quality of life and joie de vivre.
At this event, the organizing committee paid tribute to six women who have made a remarkable contribution to their community in recent years. As architects of economic and social development, these six women make Saint-Sauveur the dynamic town it is.
These committed women are Annick Cazin, Huguette Chartier, Lise Foisy, Micheline Barbe, Johanne Martel and Annie Dagenais. They have the well-being of the community of Saint-Sauveur at heart.
The Bloc Québécois pays tribute to these six women. I am convinced that their efforts will produce results. More committed women can only be good for our society. I congratulate and thank them.
* * *
[English]
Seniors Month
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, June is Seniors Month. I want to recognize the contribution of seniors, particularly those in my riding of Hamilton Mountain.
With advances in technology and medicine, seniors are living longer, healthier lives while continuing to contribute to both the social fabric and the economic prosperity of Canada.
Sackville Senior Centre in my riding has approximately 1,400 active members participating in a variety of mentally and physically challenging activities.
The percentage of seniors in Canada is growing rapidly, which requires that we remain diligent in protecting health and pension supports.
The government has shown its commitment to seniors in the present budget by increasing the guaranteed income supplement, by increasing support to the new horizons program and by increasing support to caregivers. In fact, most of the features in the present budget will help seniors.
I thank all seniors for their support, enrichment and inspiration.
* * *
[Translation]
Aerospace Industry
Mr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Quebec's industry minister stated on the weekend that Quebec could create its own policy for the aerospace industry in the absence of any federal policy.
For months now, since October to be precise, the federal government has been promising such a policy but nothing is forthcoming.
Given the importance of this issue and this sector for Canada and especially Quebec, it is high time the federal government showed transparency and tabled a real draft policy on the aerospace industry.
* * *
(1410)
[English]
Valigia D'oro Awards
Mrs. Susan Kadis (Thornhill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I had the distinct pleasure of attending the seventh annual Valigia D'oro Awards. Eight constituents of mine, Mr. and Mrs. Bo-ke-keo, Mr. and Mrs. Catapano, Mr. and Mrs. DiMarco, Mr. and Mrs. Martini, and Mr. and Mrs. Dalimonte received awards honouring their years of dedication to building a strong Canada.
The Valigia d'Oro or Golden Suitcase was established by Vaughan regional councillor, Mario Ferri, for the purpose of recognizing the sacrifices and contributions made by Italian Canadians who have immigrated to Canada. Their determination to succeed has been a true demonstration of courage and vision.
I want to thank the Italian Canadian community who together with many other communities have made such a significant difference to the lives of many Canadians.
It is now up to our generation to maintain and promote these values of hard work and dedication to ensure future generations enjoy the legacy of those who have given so much.
* * *
Health
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, public medicare is one of past minority government's proudest achievements and now forms a cornerstone of Canadian identity. We need a government to protect and improve it, reasserting a federal role to stop privatization and pursue the solutions that can control costs, improve care and keep medicare public.
Public health care attracts billions of dollars in investment. Public health care provides Canada with a competitive advantage vis-à-vis our neighbours to the south.
In the U.S., General Motors' health care bill runs about $1,500 per car produced. In Canada that figure is only a few hundred dollars. In the U.S., GM's health bill for current and retired workers is expected to reach $5.6 billion and it expects to slash 25,000 jobs in the next four years.
CAW estimates that it costs $4 or $5 more an hour per employee to build a car in the U.S. than in Canada, a 10% labour cost advantage for the Canadian auto industry. Public health care is a good part of the reason.
This year Canadians selected Tommy Douglas as the greatest Canadian. Keep our public health care for the prosperity and wellness of all Canadians in our economy.
* * *
Child Care
Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in an interview published in today's edition of the Globe and Mail, the social development minister has made a number of interesting revelations regarding the government's two tier child care plan.
In the interview the minister began by saying that he had no idea how much the government's proposed child care program will cost Canadian taxpayers. Then, despite months of telling parents his child care plan would be universally and widely accessible, the social development minister acknowledged that the Liberal plan would “never be truly universal in scope”.
With the minister now acknowledging the Liberals' child care plan is restrictive and will not address the needs of Canadian families, particularly those living in rural areas of the country, like many families in my riding of Selkirk—Interlake, I call on the government to support the Conservative Party's plan for a truly universal program, a plan that puts money directly into the hands of parents so all Canadian families can make their own child care choices.
* * *
[Translation]
Rock Banville
Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we were greatly saddened to hear of the passing of Dr. Rock Banville in Terrebonne at the age of 74. Dr. Banville was a staunch defender of workers' rights.
Dr. Banville was a native of Saint-Octave-de-Métis, and was extremely active in the labour movement, particularly as the co-founder, with well-known union leader Michel Chartrand, of the Fondation d'aide aux travailleurs accidentés du Québec.
His 1999 book La peau des autres spoke out against dangerous working conditions in the construction industry and on construction sites.
In the 1970s, he played a hand in the founding of the Front des travailleurs unis de Sept-Îles.
Dr. Banville remains a source of inspiration to us all and will live on in our memories.
The members of the Bloc Québécois join with me in extending our most sincere condolences to the family and friends of Dr. Rock Banville.
* * *
[English]
John Lynch-Staunton
Mr. David Tilson (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today I would like to honour a fellow colleague who I have had the great pleasure of getting to know. On June 19, Senator John Lynch-Staunton will be turning 75 and thus retiring from his seat in the Senate.
Senator Lynch-Staunton is a member of the Conservative Party of Canada for the province of Quebec in the Grandville senatorial division. He was first appointed to the Senate on September 23, 1990 by Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. From September 1991 to November 1993, he was Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate. In addition, he was elected leader of the opposition in the Senate in December 1993.
In 2004, Senator Lynch-Staunton served as the first leader for the new Conservative Party of Canada on an interim basis.
Today I am honoured to stand and speak of such an esteemed senator and Canadian. I thank Senator Lynch-Staunton for his hard work, dedication and service to Canada. I wish him all the best for a very happy retirement.
* * *
(1415)
[Translation]
Fight against Cancer
Mr. Jean-Claude D'Amours (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on June 4, Edmunston held its third annual Relay for Life. This is an activity held Canada wide by the Canadian Cancer Society to raise funds for the fight against cancer.
I would like to recognize all the volunteers on the relay organizing committee for their contribution to this event. Cancer is a disease of such concern to us all and I am sure that activities like the Relay for Life help raise public awareness of the need for cancer research.
The Edmunston Relay for Life collected more than $140,000, which will be used for funding promising research projects, information and support programs, defending the public interest as far as cancer prevention policies are concerned, and improving the quality of life of people living with cancer.
Finally, I wish to acknowledge the efforts of all the Relay for Life participants in Edmunston and elsewhere.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[Oral Questions]
* * *
[English]
Health
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have reviewed last week's health care decision by the Supreme Court of Canada. It did not question the public health care system in our country. However, it did question how the government has managed that system. In particular, it has pointed out that the health care wait times are at an all-time high under the Liberal government.
Could the Prime Minister tell us why, after 12 years in office, there are no national benchmarks for wait times in the country?
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is a realization which the government expressed to the Canadian people during the election campaign. It is a realization which the hon. member opposite did not seem to understand at the time.
This is why we convened the federal-provincial conference in September. This is why we set out an accelerated plan to deal with the issue of wait times, along with the provinces.
I am delighted that the Leader of the Opposition has finally come to the understanding of what the situation is. This is the issue. How do we reduce wait times? That is why we set out the plan. That is why we are working with the provinces.
* * *
Sponsorship Program
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadians will wonder why there were no wait times standards all those years the government claimed it was defending the system.
[Translation]
On May 31 and June 1, the government categorically denied in the House that it had concluded a secret agreement with Mr. Chrétien. However, the day before, the government had in fact signed a written, official and secret arrangement with Mr. Chrétien's lawyers.
Why did the Prime Minister allow his government to mislead this House?
[English]
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. There was no offer, no arrangement and no deal made between Mr. Chrétien and the Government of Canada.
There was a letter from lawyer to lawyer that simply restated the law and described how the law applied in this case. The letter reaffirms Mr. Chrétien's right as an individual to bring action forward based on perceived bias if he chooses.
Let us be clear. The Government of Canada has consistently supported the work of Justice Gomery and will continue to support the work of Justice Gomery.
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the House will recall that the minister denied there was any arrangement of any kind between Mr. Chrétien and the government.
Now he admits, because we have all got it, that an exchange of letters between lawyers has taken place that does constitute an arrangement, an arrangement that Justice Gomery was apparently unaware of and is quite concerned about.
Why did the public works minister not divulge the details of this when he was asked about it? Why did he cover it up?
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the letter from lawyer to lawyer states the fact that Mr. Chrétien has a right as an individual to pursue a course of action as an individual.
The Government of Canada also has the right and has made the decision to consistently support the work of Justice Gomery. We will continue to do exactly that.
[Translation]
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): 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?
(1420)
[English]
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again, the letter from lawyer to lawyer simply states the legal fact that Mr. Chrétien has the right as an individual to pursue a course of action to defend himself as an individual. Beyond that we have acted consistently in defence of Justice Gomery.
The only party that I am aware of that sought to delay the work of Justice Gomery by trying to change his mandate in the final days of testimony was the Conservative Party with its opposition day motion which would have delayed and destroyed much of the work and progress made by Justice Gomery.
This is why no other party in the House supported that ridiculous, poorly worded, poorly thought out motion.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as a paint salesman, the member obviously would not understand the legal implications of the arrangement discussed in the letter.
The government denied that anything of the sort even existed. Now we know there was a secret deal, including a commitment that the federal government would not oppose a right to a future challenge by Mr. Chrétien to Justice Gomery.
The Gomery report is due in December. The Prime Minister promised an election 30 days after. Another judicial challenge to Justice Gomery will delay that final report. Is this the Prime Minister's secret agenda to get out of his post-Gomery election commitment?
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not a lawyer but I understand the law of the land. It is unfortunate that a lawyer like the member for Central Nova does not understand the law of the land.
Mr. Chrétien has the right as an individual to pursue a course of action. The government and the Prime Minister have consistently supported the work of Justice Gomery because we want to ensure that the report is there.
As a business person, I signed contracts with individuals. I always kept those contracts and did not rip them up like the hon. member did with his contract with David Orchard.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on March 4, as Jean Chrétien again went after the head of Mr. Justice Gomery, the Prime Minister said he was prepared to go to court so the commissioner could complete his inquiry.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Gilles Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, they are still shouting, and then they will take offence.
How does the Prime Minister, who said he would go the whole way, now explain his about face in concluding a secret agreement to facilitate the work of Jean Chrétien and his clan?
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there was no agreement; there was nothing secret. There was an exchange of correspondence. The government's position is very clear. Not only is Judge Gomery not partial, but we will oppose any attempt to delay the report.
Now, I would like to quote the letter, “one of the arguments we had put forward with respect to your client's” Mr. Chrétien's—request for a judicial review is the fact that we consider it premature and inadmissible until after the commission's report is released”.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there is one thing I am having a hard time understanding. If there was no secret agreement, there was still a letter. That is undeniable. The government has in fact just confirmed it. The Liberals could have told us in the House that there was such a letter.
The letter as much as says to the Chrétien clan “It was a bit premature. It would have been a waste of time. Could you arrange things so it would take longer once the report has been tabled so that we do not have to decide about an election?” Is that not the bottom line?
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to table the letter in the House. It says very clearly what we said in the lawyers' factum, which is that we fiercely oppose anything that could delay the report. After that, Mr. Chrétien can exercise his rights.
I would also like to mention that the leader of the Bloc has chosen Canada. I hope he will make the same recommendation to Quebeckers.
(1425)
Mr. Michel Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we can see that the Prime Minister is keen to debate Canada's attraction for the leader of the Bloc Québécois. We will see about that in the next election.
On March 4, at the start of the Liberal convention, the Prime Minister said he was prepared to go to court if necessary to save the Gomery commission.
How can the Prime Minister speak in such contradictory terms? He says one thing and then the opposite. He says he defends Judge Gomery while he negotiates with Jean Chrétien to disqualify him.
[English]
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again there was not a negotiation. There was not an agreement. In fact, the hon. member is quite right to restate what the Prime Minister said and what the government did.
The government was clear that it supported the work of Justice Gomery and would take action to ensure that Justice Gomery had the opportunity to complete his important work on behalf of Canadians. We will continue to support the work of Justice Gomery. That is the right thing to do. That is what Canadians want. They want the truth and Justice Gomery is delivering exactly that.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister not be circumventing his commitment to call an election in January by negotiating with Jean Chrétien and supporting Mr. Chrétien's challenge of Judge Gomery?
[English]
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it should not surprise anyone in this room that lawyers representing clients before a judicial inquiry sometimes communicate with each other. In fact, that is what lawyers do: they talk. Sometimes they exchange letters. Sometimes they state the obvious. In this case they stated the obvious fact that Mr. Chrétien had the right as an individual to pursue a course of action, but that government would not support that course of action. The government consistently has and will continue to support the work of Justice Gomery.
[Translation]
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
First we hear his chief of staff say he can interfere in the work of the Ethics Commissioner. Now we hear that he and Jean Chrétien have concluded an agreement to attack Judge Gomery.
If such an agreement did not exist, why did the government lawyer write this letter? Why such a letter? This is my first question for the Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the reason for the letter is very clear when one reads it. It is because we fiercely opposed anything that might delay Judge Gomery's report. We want that report out.
Mr. Chrétien has his rights. It is not up to us to interfere with his rights. Clearly we want Judge Gomery to have all the time he needs to complete his report and absolutely nothing to delay him.
[English]
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, once again my question is for the Prime Minister. It is clear then that this letter was not required to be written. It amounts to an insurance policy. What has been reported, is serious. The Liberals just do not seem to let public inquiries go if they are going to expose any fault of the Liberal Party: Somalia, APEC, Maher Arar. It is a consistent practice and that is our concern.
People do not want Jean Chrétien and the Prime Minister to team up once again. The last time that happened we had the sponsorship scandal. Why are the Prime Minister and Jean Chrétien teaming up once again to attack--
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Public Works and Government Services.
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the fact is the government and the Prime Minister not only appointed Justice Gomery but provided exceptional support to the work of Justice Gomery, providing over 20 million pages of documents, including cabinet documents, and beyond that providing millions of dollars worth of resources, full transparency, accountability and openness and a complete focus on ensuring Justice Gomery completes his work.
This party, this government and this Prime Minister are changing the culture of government for generations of Canadians. This is worth any short term pain that is involved. We are doing the right thing, not simply the partisan thing.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has just offered, very generously, to table the letter, which was leaked, between justice department lawyers and Mr. Chrétien. How kind of him. The question is this. Why did he or his government not table that letter two weeks ago in this place when we asked about it and his public works minister denied it existed?
Why did the public works minister, rather than tabling the document, say that the allegations of its existence were false and ridiculous? Why did he not tell the House the truth?
(1430)
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the public works minister was correct when he said several weeks ago that there was no agreement made by the Government of Canada with Mr. Chrétien. The fact is the letter does not say that there was an agreement made with Mr. Chrétien. The letter simply restates the obvious legal fact that Mr. Chrétien has the right as an individual to pursue a course of action before an independent judicial inquiry.
Beyond that, what is clear is, through the actions of the government, the Prime Minister and the government consistently support and will continue to support the work of Justice Gomery.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the minister is now referring to himself in the third person. I guess it has not gone to his head.
We want to know why the Prime Minister is offering to table the document that was leaked to the press today? When we asked about it two weeks ago, on two consecutive days, in six questions, the government denied it existed. The Prime Minister knew about it all along, sat in his place and did nothing to correct the record.
Why did he allow his public works minister to do something other than tell the truth to the House? Why did he not stand and offer to table the document two weeks ago when he should have?
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member has said things in the House that have been patently false and he has refused to withdraw those statements. Beyond that, I notice on an ongoing basis the hon. member asks me these questions in the House. I continue to spank him on the floor of the House of Commons. By the fact that he comes back with the same types of ridiculous questions, one can only assume that he is enjoying the spankings he is receiving here on the floor of the House of Commons.
* * *
Child Care
Ms. Rona Ambrose (Edmonton—Spruce Grove, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are now intent on creating a two tier child care system. In contrast, the Conservative Party plan is universal. We will financially empower all parents equally. We will give cash subsidies directly to parents so that they can make their own child care choices.
When will the government understand that all children deserve equal support and all parents deserve to have their choices respected?
Hon. Ken Dryden (Minister of Social Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have reminded the hon. member and as I have reminded the House, what we need to do is to go back 13 months to where we were in terms of early learning and child care in this country and what has happened since that time, the $5 billion over five year commitment and ongoing support. All that we heard 13 months ago during an election campaign was a promise that would deliver $320 to low income families. That is all we have heard up until now. We will await further word.
Ms. Rona Ambrose (Edmonton—Spruce Grove, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Social Development has admitted that he does not know if his child care plan is universal, and I can tell him that it is not.
We know almost 100% of working parents have said that if they could afford it, they would stay home part time with their children. We also know that not one red cent of the Liberal day care plan would support that choice for parents. We know that almost 100% of working parents are left out of the Liberal plan.
When will the government start listening to what parents want?
Hon. Ken Dryden (Minister of Social Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I reminded the hon. member a few months ago, I would suggest that she do the math. That math is very powerful. Seventy per cent of parents in this country with children under the age of six are both in the workplace, and $5 billion over five years offers a significant boost to those particular parents. It is a lot more of a boost than has been heard in any concrete form from that side of the House.
* * *
[Translation]
Sponsorship Program
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on May 31, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services gave the following answer in the House to a question by a Conservative MP:
|
Mr. Speaker, once again the hon. member's question and assertion are totally false. There was no deal— |
However, at the same time, the government and Jean Chrétien's lawyers had signed a letter.
Why then did the Minister of Public Works and Government Services hide this information from the House by pretending that this letter was not a deal, not an agreement? Was it not his duty to clarify the situation, as we had asked him to do here in the House?
(1435)
[English]
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the situation is clarified when I state repeatedly that there was no agreement. The fact is the letter simply states that Mr. Chrétien has the right before the law as an individual to pursue a course of action. Let us be clear. The government made a decision in response to Mr. Chrétien's action to support the work of Justice Gomery and will continue to do so. There is no contradiction. We are doing the right thing and we are supporting the work of Justice Gomery.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services failed to tell the House that this letter of agreement between the government and Jean Chrétien's lawyers did, in fact, exist, and all he told the MP was that her statements were false.
I ask the minister, is failing to mention an agreement that did exist, that had been signed the day before, that dealt precisely with the member's question and that referred to a relationship, an agreement between the government and Jean Chrétien, not wilfully misleading the House?
[English]
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will say to that hon. member that he is wrong as well. There is no agreement. There never was an agreement. The fact is there is a letter between lawyers that confirms that Mr. Chrétien has the right as an individual before the law to pursue a course of action in defence of himself before a judicial inquiry. Our actions as a government speak louder than any words by the fact that we consistently have supported and will support the work of Justice Gomery.
* * *
[Translation]
Member for Newton—North Delta
Ms. Nicole Demers (Laval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, from his seat here in the House of Commons, the Prime Minister has stated that a Conservative MP had solicited an offer. This is an offence under section 119 of the Criminal Code. That statement by the Prime Minister concerning the solicitation of an offer can be found in the official report of the Debates of the House of Commons.
When was the Prime Minister informed of this approach by the member? Was it during the negotiations or after they were all over?
[English]
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as has been said often in the House, the Prime Minister said he was informed that the member for Newton—North Delta wanted to cross the floor. The Prime Minister said no offer was to be made. No offer was made.
I understand that the Bloc has contacted the RCMP regarding this matter. If the member has any further information, she should provide it to the RCMP.
[Translation]
Ms. Nicole Demers (Laval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, why is the Prime Minister refusing to answer this simple question? Is it to save the skin of his chief of staff or is it more simply to save his own skin, since he would appear to have participated in the commission of a crime?
[English]
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand why the hon. member and her party continue to ask these questions when they have asked the RCMP themselves to see whether an investigation is warranted.
I say again, if the hon. member does have information, she should provide it to the RCMP so the RCMP can decide whether an investigation is warranted.
* * *
Child Care
Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Social Development has admitted he has no idea what he is doing or where he is going. He has finally admitted his child care plan will not be universal, costs are not calculated and children will be funded differently based on where they live.
Why is the minister abandoning low income families, shift workers and rural Canadians while misleading them with stories of inclusion?
Hon. Ken Dryden (Minister of Social Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is just plain wrong. She is wrong in just about everything that she has said.
In terms of the national early learning and child care system, it is available across the country. It is there for those who live in urban areas and for those who live in rural areas.
The first five agreements have been signed. An agreement has been signed with the province of Saskatchewan which has a pretty significant rural population. In the third year it will represent a 95% increase on what is provided in early learning and child care. That is a lot of support for people who live rural areas.
Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the minister has admitted that he is willing to gamble $5 billion. Parents do not want expensive social experiments. They want choice. They want to be able to choose the child care arrangement that best meets their own family's needs, not one made by the minister.
Why will the minister not simply transfer direct assistance to parents so that they can make the best decisions for their children?
(1440)
Hon. Ken Dryden (Minister of Social Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and her party embarrassed themselves 12 months ago in the election campaign by offering a commitment to early learning and child care. As they would suggest, it would represent $320 for a low income family. The average cost of child care in this country is over $8,000. That represents no choice at all.
* * *
Access to Information
Mr. Russ Hiebert (South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, CPC): Mr. Speaker, last week the Information Commissioner made it clear the Liberal government is “seized with a culture of distrust and secrecy”. He slammed the justice minister's attempt to create a law that, had it been in place just a few years ago, would have prevented the sponsorship scandal from ever becoming public.
All three opposition parties want to reappoint official whistleblower John Reid. Will the Prime Minister admit that in refusing to reappoint Mr. Reid, he is breaking his commitment to “openness and transparency”?
Hon. Reg Alcock (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, of course, I reject the preamble that was made. In fact the powers that the individual is talking about--
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order. I am sure the hon. President of the Treasury Board appreciates the enthusiastic response this question is generating in the House, but we have to be able to hear the answer. With the problems that seem to be caused by his answer, we will want to hear it.
I would urge hon. members to constrain themselves and listen very attentively to what the President of the Treasury Board has to say.
Hon. Reg Alcock: Mr. Speaker, thank you for that very important advice.
The item that is referenced, the powers that are referenced in the bill, are exactly the same powers given to every other investigative body. They are done to make the whistleblowing bill stronger and the protection of public servants better.
Mr. Russ Hiebert (South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the minister clearly does not understand what he is talking about.
The Prime Minister told us a year ago, “the change in culture, in the way things are done, will be the yardstick against which our success will be measured”. Yet, according to the Information Commissioner, there has never been “an organization that has been so viciously attacked” as his office by the Liberal administration.
Using the Prime Minister's own yardstick, it is clear that he has been measured and has been found wanting. Will he measure up and reappoint John Reid?
Hon. Reg Alcock (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that same Information Commissioner went on at some length about the very proactive decisions that had been made at Treasury Board under the guidance of the Prime Minister, the proactive disclosure policy which puts information online so all Canadians can judge our actions.
In fact, the government is actively and aggressively opening up, not the opposite.
* * *
Candu Reactor
Mr. Marc Godbout (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, given Atomic Energy of Canada's envious record of performance in the past for its Candu technology, can the Minister of Natural Resources assure the House that the technology will remain competitive in the global market and remain the best reactor available in the world?
Hon. R. John Efford (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in spite of what was in the Globe and Mail today, I can answer without a doubt that the Candu reactor that is presently in China is outperforming all of its competition in the world.
The new advanced Candu reactor that is coming on stream in 2010 will be equal to and/or better than its competition in the world. Actually, the reactor that was bid on in that country just recently had nothing to do with the Candu reactor from Canada. It was a particular reactor on which bids were called. AECL could not participate in the bid.
* * *
Employment
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am sure the labour minister was as surprised as we were to hear his colleague at human resources say that Canada has the lowest unemployment in the G-7. In fact, she is dead wrong. We are number four and the 1.2 million Canadians who are unemployed will verify that. Even more shocking is the fact that the unemployment statistics for aboriginal Canadians living off reserve are two and a half times higher.
There are applications for foreign workers to come in for the Vancouver Olympics. There is unemployment in certain sectors.
What is the government doing to match the atrociously high unemployment--
(1445)
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Finance.
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians can never be complacent about employment and unemployment, but I am pleased to say that the statistics released on Friday were very encouraging. The fact of the matter is since we balanced the books in the country, Canada's economy has generated 2.7 million new net jobs for Canadians. We have the best employment creation record in the western world.
* * *
Shipbuilding Industry
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, 1.2 million Canadians are unemployed because of the government. One area where the government could improve the situation is in our shipbuilding industry.
The Prime Minister's own sons have Canada Steamship Lines which should be renamed China steamship lines. Two more ships are being built offshore because of the inaction of the government.
My question is quite simple. How many more jobs do we have to lose in the shipbuilding industry before the government and the minister finally get it?
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his interest in the shipbuilding industry.
I have been meeting with the shipbuilding and industrial marine advisory committee. We are working on a strategy for the shipbuilding industry. Like any other sector in Canada or anywhere else in the world, the industry is going through tough competitive times. It needs to transform. The government has no fewer than 14 policy initiatives of benefit to the Canadian shipbuilding industry.
* * *
Marriage
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice has dismissed the warnings of the Conservative Party of Canada that Canadian churches could lose their charitable tax status if they support traditional marriage. He has stated that these concerns are without foundation. Now media outlets report that activists are in fact advocating that course of action.
Why has the minister refused to legislatively protect the right of religious organizations to express their views on traditional marriage?
Hon. Paul Harold Macklin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that if one looks at the charities legislation, registered charities are free to engage in public debate and conduct public awareness campaigns. They can speak out on any issue, including controversial issues.
The Income Tax Act though provides some limits on how registered charities can spend their resources. Those resources must be collected for a particular charitable purpose to be acceptable. Activities paid for by resources of a registered charity must be linked to the charity's purpose and must remain an incidental to its charitable program.
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC): Mr. Speaker, those are interesting comments coming from a government that threatened a bishop of the Roman Catholic Church.
Public officials, including teachers and marriage commissioners, are being fired from their jobs as a direct result of the changes being made in the definition of marriage. Now activists are threatening to have the charitable tax status of Canada's churches revoked and the minister has done absolutely nothing to protect those religious organizations.
The minister has refused to address those concerns. He has in fact ensured that some minorities are protected while others are not. Why is that?
Hon. Paul Harold Macklin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member should examine the committee hearings relating to this matter when Bishop Henry appeared before the committee. He said that he received a phone call from the income tax department but never received any follow-up. I think the member is blowing smoke.
* * *
National Defence
Mr. Gordon O'Connor (Carleton—Mississippi Mills, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have allowed the air force to run down over the last 10 years. It is underfunded and short staffed, with an ever decreasing fleet of aircraft. It has now reached the point where it cannot maintain its base infrastructure.
CFB Goose Bay is a classic example. The Liberals made a shallow election promise to Goose Bay it cannot keep. The government now clings to the faint hope that NATO will return to conduct low level air training. All it can offer is flying exercises.
Will the minister admit it is only a matter of time before the government closes CFB Goose Bay for good?
(1450)
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will admit absolutely nothing of the sort. The Prime Minister has made it clear, we have all made it clear, that we are working with Goose Bay. Goose Bay is a very valuable asset for the military and for this country.
The hon. member went to Goose Bay and made outrageously extravagant promises in an attempt to get votes. They were so unrealistic and nobody believed them because they did not vote for it. We are actually working with the community of Goose Bay and our military to ensure that it is a viable and operable base for the good of the country, for the good of Goose Bay and, by the way, for the good of our NATO allies as well.
Mr. Gordon O'Connor (Carleton—Mississippi Mills, CPC): Mr. Speaker, promises made, promises soon to be abandoned.
The Liberals continue to dither on air transport which is one of the most vital capabilities of the forces. The government's long drawn out response to the tsunami crisis made all Canadians aware that our fleet of tactical air transport is seriously overcommitted and in increasing states of disrepair. This capability is the key to moving troops throughout Canada and the world, yet no concrete steps have been taken by the government to replace the fleet.
When will the minister take action to solve this problem?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. members knows, and all hon. members of the House who follow this issue closely know, there is an important discussion at this time on the relationship between a strategic lift and a tactical lift. I totally agree with the hon. member. We are focused on replacing the Herc fleet. We are focused on ensuring that we have the fleet of aircraft in place that will enable our troops to do the job we ask them to do.
At this time they are perfectly capable of doing that job. However, as we saw in the last budget, we are committed to ensuring that our troops have the equipment that will make them the best forces in the world to do that job in the future.
* * *
[Translation]
Health
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health does not preclude imposing fines on Quebec and the provinces following the Supreme Court ruling that opens the door to private sector health care. This is inconsistent with what the Minister of Transport said last Friday in this House, when he accused the Bloc of “trying to come up with scarecrows to frighten people”.
Can the Minister of Health allay the real fears arising out of the Supreme Court's recent ruling and promise not to punish Quebec?
[English]
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House that, on the basis of this decision, Quebec need not worry with respect to any cuts in the transfer payments.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does the Minister of Health realize that the best way to alleviate fears on this matter is to make a clear promise that he has no intention whatsoever of imposing fines that would result in reduced health transfers to Quebec?
[English]
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we just increased transfers for health care over the next 10 years by an additional $41 billion last year. I can assure the House that on the basis of this decision, Quebec or any other province need not fear any reduction in the transfer payments.
* * *
Veterans Affairs
Mr. Dave MacKenzie (Oxford, CPC): Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of National Defence acknowledged that deadly toxic agent orange was used some 40 years ago at CFB Gagetown. Military records show that the most dangerous ingredient of the herbicide agent orange was sprayed on unsuspecting Canadian Forces personnel at CFB Gagetown 10 years earlier.
The government is rapidly losing credibility on the issue. Why did the minister choose not to inform the House last week that the Canadian military had been spraying this deadly toxic chemical for an additional 10 years? Why the secrecy?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I sought to explain to the hon. member in the House last week, these are events that occurred over 45 years ago. We are making strenuous efforts to obtain the appropriate records, work with those who were exposed, and work with anyone in the community who knew anything about this.
We have already given compensation through veterans affairs to various members who were exposed. We will work with all those who were exposed to these chemicals to ensure that they are made whole as much possible.
However, hon. members must recognize that what occurred 45 years ago presents a real challenge in terms of getting records and being able to find--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Oxford.
Mr. Dave MacKenzie (Oxford, CPC): Mr. Speaker, there is evidence that an even more toxic chemical, agent purple, was also being sprayed on unsuspecting personnel at CFB Gagetown. Dr. Richard van der Jagt, a leukemia specialist at the Ottawa General Hospital, says that agent purple contains three times the cancer causing material found in agent orange.
When will the minister stop dancing around the issue, take action, and announce his plan to help our Canadian Forces veterans and civilians who were harmed by these deadly toxic chemicals?
(1455)
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have announced a plan. We have told the hon. member and everyone else in the Canadian Forces that if they were exposed to these chemicals, they were to come forward. We will work with them. We will work with veterans affairs. We will ensure that all people who were exposed to these chemicals and can show that there is a relationship between their disease and what was engaged in in the past will be compensated by veterans affairs in accordance with Canadian law and practices.
We will do that, but I ask the hon. member to recognize that now he wants to go back not just 45 years but 55 years to determine what took place. We are doing our best. Let us not confuse people with accusations. Let us work with them to get an answer.
* * *
International Aid
Mr. Michael Savage (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there were reports from London over the weekend about a breakthrough regarding debt relief for the world's poorest nations. Going into the G-8 finance ministers meeting, there were a number of proposals on the table including the Canadian proposal.
Can the Minister of Finance tell the House the result of those discussions on this critical issue and what it means for the world's poorest countries?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a historic agreement among G-8 countries was indeed reached over the weekend providing at least $55 billion in debt relief to the poorest countries on earth.
It met Canada's pre-conditions which were: additionality, bringing new resources into poverty reduction; equity; and extending the benefits beyond the most indebted countries to include others that are just plain poor. The integrity of international financial institutions was assured and incentives were provided for good governance.
Canada has been a champion of debt relief. The Prime Minister put it on the world's agenda and we have prevailed.
* * *
Justice
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister knows, a Liberal colleague of his offered strong support to notorious schoolgirl killer Karla Homolka by attending her recent court hearing in Quebec. That member actually stated that he did not consider her to be dangerous. In fact, the way the Prime Minister's caucus colleague spoke of Homolka, one would think that she was some kind of martyr who was unjustly punished by a totalitarian regime, namely Canada.
Does the Prime Minister condone his caucus member's comments and behaviour?
The Speaker: The question is of doubtful propriety, but if the Deputy Prime Minister wishes to answer, I will let her do so.
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think it is inappropriate to comment upon the motives of someone from the other place. I am sure the hon. member knows that the accused offender in question served her entire sentence and that the attorney general of Quebec sought a section 810.2 order against her, which was granted by the judge in question.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the whole Liberal caucus should be choked over the comments from that man. That Liberal caucus member stated that he felt the restrictions facing Homolka--
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order, please. I do not think we need to get into questions of punishment. We want a question from the hon. member. Perhaps he could put his question without going through the list of things that we might do.
Mr. Art Hanger: Mr. Speaker, the actions and comments of the Prime Minister's colleague are unjustifiable. It is too bad he did not share that deep concern for the families of Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy, and the pain they have had to endure and continue to endure because of comments like that. To lend moral support to Karla Homolka is nothing short of repugnant.
My question to the Prime Minister--
The Speaker: I am afraid the hon. member's time has expired. I know there are a lot of interruptions here, but they are beyond my control, I am afraid. I do not think there was a question by the hon. member, so we will move on.
(1500)
[Translation]
The hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île.
* * *
Maher Arar Inquiry
Ms. Francine Lalonde (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ): Mr. Speaker, during his testimony before the Maher Arar inquiry, the Minister of National Defence said that Canada would have stepped up its efforts had the government known that Maher Arar was at risk of being tortured. Yet, according to Gar Pardy, the former head of consular services, reports indicating suspicions of torture had been presented to the department.
How could the minister, who has apologized to Maher Arar, state in this House that he was not informed of the threats that hung over Arar, when his department was aware of them?
Hon. Geoff Regan (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe my hon. colleague ought to take into consideration that this is an ongoing inquiry, and comments must not be made on daily events.
* * *
Softwood Lumber
Mr. David Smith (Pontiac, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, through its Bill 71, the Government of Quebec reduced the allowable cut of softwood by 20%. The impact of this, in addition to the softwood lumber conflict and the existing problems with the other species, has several communities in my riding quite worried.
Will the Government of Canada intervene to help the affected communities in my riding and throughout Quebec?
Hon. Jacques Saada (Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec and Minister responsible for the Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, who is working so hard on this issue.
In addition to the $33 million invested in the softwood lumber industry over the past five years, Canada Economic Development has invested $71 million in 309 production, market development, secondary processing and innovation projects. This is in addition to a $20 million investment by other federal partners.
As for Bill 71, I came to an agreement with Minister Audet to further improve our financial support for mitigation measures and to strike a coordinating committee to better focus our joint support to the affected communities.
If we can do more, we will, but first we need the budget.
* * *
Employment Insurance Act
Bill C-280 — Speaker's Ruling
[Speaker's Ruling ]
The Speaker: Order. I am now prepared to rule on the request from the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities with respect to the need for a royal recommendation for Bill C-280, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (Employment Insurance Account and premium rate setting) and another act in consequence.
On June 6, 2005, the Standing Committee presented its seventh report to the House which sought clarification regarding the provisions of this bill as it related to the royal recommendation. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader made a submission on this matter as well as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development , and the hon. member for St. John’s South—Mount Pearl. The Chair thanks these members for their submissions.
[English]
(1505)
As hon. members may recall, the Chair made an earlier ruling on this same bill at the commencement of second reading debate on February 8, 2005. At that time the Chair stated that it appeared clause 5 required a royal recommendation. The Chair proceeded in this fashion as a result of its responsibility to manage private members' business under Standing Order 94(1) and its responsibility under Standing Order 79(2).
As I explained in the statement of February 8 on Bill C-280, clause 5 mandated the appointment of 13 new commissioners to the Canada Employment Insurance Commission. The remuneration received by these new members would entail additional public spending and this spending required the bill to have a royal recommendation.
The Chair went on to state that debate on the bill could proceed, despite this impediment, until the moment for putting the question on third reading. If by that time no royal recommendation had been received, then the Chair would decline to put the question on third reading.
[Translation]
Since the beginning of this Parliament, matters relating to the financial initiative of the Crown and private members’ bills have been raised by the Chair at an early stage to provide all members with an opportunity to make submissions. In this way, if the House sends a bill to committee for detailed consideration, members of the committee are forewarned of its shortcomings. A committee can amend such bills to remove the spending provisions, or the sponsor can convince the Crown to provide a royal recommendation.
In the case before us today, during its deliberations on Bill C-280, the members of the standing committee considered amendments to remove the spending requirements of clause 5 in order to permit the bill to proceed to a vote at third reading. While this prospect would have responded to the difficulty signaled in the Chair’s February statement, a quite different question arose during its deliberations and the committee decided to seek clarification from the Chair.
Thus, in his incisive submission to the House, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader maintained that clause 2 infringes on the financial initiative of the Crown for two reasons: It creates a new fund outside the Consolidated Revenue Fund, and it alters the purpose of the original legislation.
[English]
Sections 71 to 77 of the Employment Insurance Act establish the operation of the employment insurance account as part of the consolidated revenue fund. Amounts are paid out of the consolidated revenue fund and charged to the account chiefly for employment benefits and the costs of administering the act.
The parliamentary secretary describes the current employment insurance account as a “virtual fund” since the actual funds are integrated with the general revenues within the consolidated revenue fund. The EI account actually expresses the balance of employment insurance transactions, that is to say, whether it is in a surplus or deficit position.
The parliamentary secretary claimed that clause 2 of Bill C-280 creates an independent EI account outside the consolidated revenue fund and, in so doing, creates an account that represents a new and distinct charge on the public revenue that is not currently provided for in legislation.
The parliamentary secretary raised another point relating to clause 2. As he explained, the purpose of the current Employment Insurance Act would be changed for it does not assign to the EI Commission the role of independently managing the amounts paid into the account, nor of investing the assets with financial institutions. Thus, he contended, the change to the employment insurance regime proposed by Bill C-280, particularly with reference to the commission, is a significant alteration of the circumstances, manner and purposes of the original legislative authority which was accompanied by a royal recommendation. To alter such provisions in this manner infringes on the financial initiative of the Crown. The parliamentary secretary cited a recent ruling on May 9, 2005 where the Chair explained on page 5780 of Hansard that:
|
--a royal recommendation is required not only in the case where more money is being appropriated, but also in the case where the authorization to spend for a specific purpose is being significantly altered. |
(1510)
[Translation]
The Chair has had an opportunity to reflect on the complexities of this case. I have carefully reviewed the submissions to determine whether Bill C-280 in clause 2 does anything more than rearrange the method of accounting for public funds. If not, then no royal recommendation is required: how public funds are recorded in the government’s ledgers does not constitute an appropriation for which a royal recommendation would be required. On close examination, it seems to the Chair that clause 2 in Bill C-280 involves more than accounting methodology
The Chair acknowledges that the proposed section 72 in Bill C-280 would credit monies from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to the Commission which would then place it into a new and separate account.
As the parliamentary secretary pointed out, this clause converts the Employment Insurance Account from an account within the Consolidated Revenue Fund to one that is outside the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Right now, monies in the Consolidated Revenue Fund are available for eventual expenditure for purposes of claims under the Employment Insurance Act. With the passage of Bill C-280, monies are expended immediately from the Consolidated Revenue Fund even though these funds are not needed for expenditure under the Employment Insurance Act. In other words, Bill C-280 effects an appropriation by spending or authorizing the spending of public funds by transfer of the funds from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to a separate EI Fund with the result that these monies are no longer available for other appropriations Parliament may make. These funds would no longer be available because, in effect, they have been spent, that is, transferred out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund to a separate and independent account outside the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Such a transfer, in my view, constitutes an appropriation within the meaning of section 54 of the Constitution Act, 1867 and for this reason a royal recommendation is required in respect of clause 2 of the Bill.
[English]
In relation to the argument that proposed subsection 72(3) creates new duties for the commission in terms of managing and investing amounts paid into the employment insurance account, the Chair believes that, here again, this would involve new spending for a new purpose and, as such, requires a royal recommendation.
Therefore, in its present form, Bill C-280 infringes on the financial initiative of the Crown for three reasons: first, clause 2 effects an appropriation of public funds by its transfer of these funds from the consolidated revenue fund to an independent employment insurance account established outside the consolidated revenue fund.
Second, clause 2 significantly alters the duties of the EI Commission to enable new or different spending of public funds by the commission for a new purpose namely, the investment of public funds.
Third, as indicated in my ruling of February 8, clause 5 increases the number of commissioners from four to seventeen.
In conclusion, let me say that this is the ninth decision that I have delivered this session relating to private members' bills and the financial initiative of the Crown. In light of the new regime for private members' business, the Chair has had to view very seriously its responsibilities with regard to private members' bills, particularly with regard to the requirement that our procedures respect the financial prerogatives of the Crown.
I want to thank all hon. members who intervened in this situation and I want to encourage all hon. members, private members and the ministry, to raise at the earliest opportunity any concerns they may have with any bills the House is considering. Ideally, such concerns will be raised at the commencement of debate at second reading in keeping with the best traditions of this place so that decisions can be taken with full knowledge of the consequences of those decisions. When bills appear to contain financial provisions that should be recommended by the Crown, it behooves us all to ensure that proper attention is given to them.
(1515)
[Translation]
I thank the House and the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities for providing the Chair with this opportunity to make the necessary clarifications with regard to Bill C-280.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I want to ask if the Chair has had the time to consider this matter, in other words, did this bill require a ways and means motion.
I am raising this question in reference to a Speaker's ruling on a Senate bill during the last Parliament. That bill sought to impose a levy on cigarettes that would have gone into a separate fund. The money collected would have gone to good works, such as a campaign to prevent youth smoking. It was highly commendable.
However, I told the House back then that this was a levy or a tax. Since it was a tax, the Chair decided at that time that the bill required a ways and means motion, if my memory serves me. I invite the Chair to consider this further. This was my first point.
[English]
I would like to raise a second point. Given that we have a large number of these bills coming up in the future, as Mr. Speaker has correctly said, we will begin third reading knowing that we cannot complete that stage of the same bill.
I wonder if the Speaker has ever thought that we should maybe ask that before we begin the third reading stage of a bill, the government either indicate that it will provide the royal recommendation, or otherwise the time of the House will be taken up to debate a motion namely, the acceptance of a bill at third reading, knowing that the bill will never be voted on.
I thought I would offer those two items respectfully.
The Speaker: I want to thank the hon. member for Glengarry--Prescott--Russell for his views.
With respect to the first issue, I assume he was referring to Bill C-280 in respect of a ways and means motion. Since the bill is not proposing to increase taxation but simply change the way the funds would be dealt with once they get paid into the consolidated revenue fund of Canada, I do not believe a ways and means motion is necessary. That is off the top of my head. However I will happily look into the matter and if my opinion is different I will get back to the House.
With respect to the second issue, he knows the Chair has no opinion whatever in respect to the rules of the House. I simply apply them. He also knows that as chairman of the procedure and House affairs committee he is in a position to bring in recommendations for changes to the rules that the House could adopt and then the Speaker would happily enforce them.
If he wishes to change the rules so that debate does not even start on third reading unless there is going to be a royal recommendation, then the Speaker will happily enforce that rule. However I have no opinion whatever on whether that would be a prudent course. That is entirely up to members. I am happy to abide by whatever decision hon. members make in that regard.
Routine Proceedings
[Routine Proceedings]
* * *
[English]
Government Response to Petitions
Hon. Raymond Simard (Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Minister responsible for Official Languages and Minister responsible for Democratic Reform, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to three petitions.
* * *
[Translation]
Committees of the House
Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology on Bill C-37, an act to amend the Telecommunications Act.
* * *
Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Ms. Francine Lalonde (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the eleventh report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade on the humanitarian crisis in Darfur.
I also have the honour to present, in both official languages, the twelfth report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade on international aid. I am sure that it will have an enormous impact.
* * *
(1520)
[English]
Petitions
Health
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC): Mr. Speaker, my petitioners say that on average the majority of CF members who reside in Ontario will lose between $450 to $750 per year to the new Ontario health premium. The members of the Canadian armed forces have been promised a full refund of the premiums with an offsetting payment paid through the post living differential by the government.
The petitioners therefore call upon Parliament to direct the Department of National Defence to immediately pay the promised refund and enforce the Canada Health Act to stop the Liberal Party of Ontario from extra billing our soldiers and our RCMP.
* * *
Marriage
Mr. Richard Harris (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): Mr. Speaker, a vast majority of Canadians support the current legal definition of marriage as the voluntary union of a single man and a single woman, including the several hundred from my riding, namely from Quesnel, British Columbia.
The petitioners say that whereas it is the duty of Parliament to ensure that marriage is defined as Canadians wish it to be defined, they petition Parliament to use all possible legislative and administrative measures, including invoking section 33 of the charter if necessary, to preserve and protect the current definition of marriage as between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of a number of constituents from Mississauga South and other parts of Canada on the subject matter of marriage. I think we have reached a threshold at which it should be unanimously adopted. I am sure, with this petition, we have crossed the million signatures by now.
However, one more time, the petitioners draw to the attention of the House that matters of social policy shall be decided by elected parliamentarians and not by unelected judges. What part of that do we not understand? It is part, as I understand, that shows Parliament is the highest court in the land. Also, the majority of Canadians believe that the definition as defined, being the legal union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, is the preferred definition. We have proved that through the polls often enough.
Finally, the petitioners ask that Parliament use its legislative and administrative powers, including a power that is in section 33 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the notwithstanding clause, to ensure that we preserve and protect the traditional definition of marriage. All those in favour say aye.
* * *
Employment Insurance
Hon. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my petition on employment insurance is signed by a number of citizens throughout the Niagara region.
The petitioners make clear that the House of Commons committee responsible for EI submitted a report on February 15. They petition Parliament to build a better, fairer employment insurance system and to do so by first making the legislative reforms recommended by the House of Commons committee report of February 15.
* * *
Natural Health Products
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I table a petition on behalf of over 100 residents of Windsor West. The petitioners call upon the government to ensure that traditional natural health care products be properly classified as food and not arbitrarily restricted as drugs. Furthermore, modern scientific evidence confirms that mitigation and prevention of many diseases and disorders through the judicious use of natural health products are a benefit to Canadians. That is why they put their voice to this cause.
* * *
Community Access Program
Mr. Gord Brown (Leeds—Grenville, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to submit a petition signed by citizens of my constituency of Leeds—Grenville. The petition concerns a community access program that is now in its final year. It has been a valuable program in my riding and the petitioners ask that it be continued.
* * *
(1525)
Marriage
Mr. Peter Van Loan (York—Simcoe, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am please to rise today to present two petitions on behalf of a number of my constituents in the riding of York—Simcoe on the subject of the definition of marriage. The petitioners ask Parliament to define marriage in federal law as being the lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
* * *
Foreign Affairs
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to submit a petition signed by literally thousands of university students who, in the midst of studying and preparing for exams, still have found it necessary to sign it.
The petitioners ask the government to work aggressively at the United Nations to ensure that proper support, resources, people and backup be given especially to the people of Darfur where a genocide is taking place. These students want to make a difference and they want Canada to make a difference in the situation in Sudan and Darfur.
* * *
Marriage
Mr. Bradley Trost (Saskatoon—Humboldt, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to present petitions from people in my constituency, specifically from the city of Saskatoon and from the towns of St. Brieux, Naicam and St. Louis.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House their very firm belief that marriage is a sacred institution that forms the basis of the family unit and that Parliament overwhelmingly affirmed its understanding of marriage as a union between a single man and a single woman to the exclusion of all others in 1999.
Therefore, they humbly call upon Parliament to pass legislation that will protect the traditional definition of marriage as it has before affirmed.
* * *
Diabetes
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present.
The first petition draws to the attention of the House that juvenile type one diabetes creates many devastating health consequences that produce not only a huge human cost but also a large financial burden for the Canadian health care system and the economy as a whole. Diabetes is one of the most costly chronic diseases, costing Canadians in excess of $10 billion a year, making it one of the nation's most costly illnesses.
The petitioners seek to secure federal funding, targeted specifically to juvenile type one diabetes research, of $25 million a year for the next five years.
* * *
Marriage
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the second petition deals with marriage. The petitioners state that marriage is in the exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament. They pray that Parliament pass legislation to recognize the institution of marriage in federal law as being a lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have two other petitions, both on the same subject, from constituents in Westbank all the way down to south of Penticton. As many petitions already have from my constituency, the petitioners request that Parliament pass legislation to recognize the institution of marriage in federal law as being a lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
* * *
[Translation]
Questions on the Order Paper
Hon. Raymond Simard (Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Minister responsible for Official Languages and Minister responsible for Democratic Reform, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
* * *
[English]
Canada Border Services Agency Act
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-26, An Act to establish the Canada Border Services Agency, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak today to Bill C-26. I will be splitting my time with my friend and colleague from South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale.
Bill C-26 is an act to establish the Canadian Border Services Agency. It would create this agency and would bring under its umbrella the border security and intelligence functions previously carried out by three other government operations: the customs program from the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency; the intelligence and interdiction and enforcement program of the immigration program at ports of entry from the Citizenship and Immigration Canada Branch; and imports inspections reports of entry by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
With putting these three agencies under one umbrella, have we changed the size of the workforce of any of these agencies? Have we grown the bureaucracy of Canada or have we made it more organized? Have any of these others departments become smaller by the personnel they have lost to form the new Canada Border Services Agency? Has this put more resources where they are needed or has it created a new agency to oversee a group already overtaxed and spread very thin just to review our imports?
This view discusses the FAST program and the Nexus program, and they are very usable tools to provide pre-approved low-risk travellers and shippers.
As we see it at the moment, the problem with both FAST and Nexus is the infrastructure is not there to support them. Although we have created a system with which we can better serve low-risk importers and travellers, a infrastructure bottleneck is still created, specifically near my riding of Elgin--Middlesex--London. The Windsor-Detroit crossing the Port Huron-Sarnia crossing are backed up most each and every day out to the 400 series highways.
The use of a FAST system or a Nexus system starts to become impossible because of the trucks that are already in front. The government continues to look for a solution for the infrastructure piece to our borders, sometimes by creating new departments, sometimes by creating new systems and sometimes by creating new legislation like Nexus and FAST.
The true answer to our border services in southern Ontario is infrastructure. We simply do not have the capacity since 9/11, and truly since before it, to move the number of cars and trucks across bridges and tunnels between Ontario and the United States, and generally from Canada to the United States.
The years of inaction by the government has left this as a problem. The government continues to say that it is studying it. Locally, we call that “paralysis by analysis”. It continues to analyze the problem and therefore never gets to it. This may be an effective way of studying by ostriches, but humans find if we bury our heads in the sand, the problems do not go away. Canadians expect action from their government.
The next item in the bill would put in place is the Canadian Border Security Agency, although it has been acting in this capacity since December 12, 2003. Again, we have a case of the government following with legislation well after the fact of action. It has been a year and a half. We find the government a little behind itself with the legislative authority. We hope it still believes in what it wanted 18 months ago because the legislation is now before us to create the agency.
Front line border agents also are in question in the bill. It would establish a new agency for them, but we continue to hear of cases of front line border agents being overworked, working alone, working unarmed and not having the resources with which to fully function and to do their job.
Dedication is not the problem. Our border agencies are second to none. The officers on the front line are second to none. The problem is they do not have the backup or the resources to do their job. Equipping is essential.
(1530)
Recent stories of border guards working alone certainly raise concerns. We consider this a fairly high-level security job in that we are trying to prevent items and people that should not be here from moving into Canada. I expect that the opposite is true of our neighbours to the south, who expect our border agency to prevent people from moving their way who should not be moving their way. If we find cases of border guards working alone and unarmed, I am not certain that we are really putting the necessary resources behind the problem.
One of the other things I found in reading this legislation was that it has the term “arrangements” built into it. This has to do with foreign states and international organizations or any person or organization. I am always afraid when I see legislation predicting future arrangements rather than stating what the arrangements might be.
Some of my colleagues this morning, in discussing this same piece of legislation, talked about the need for Canadians to soon carry passports when they enter into the United States. At the same time, legislation is coming forward that will also make it necessary for Americans to have passports when they leave and come back into their own country.
This cries out to something I mentioned earlier about border agents and the jobs they do. We are asking for an increased level of documentation in order to provide better security at our borders and the U.S. is asking that we enforce this to provide a higher level of security with respect to people entering it.
Knowing that everybody travelling into the United States will need a passport and knowing the timelines and the difficulty for people to get passports on an as needed basis, I ask that Passport Canada continue to look at this problem and make it a high priority so that passports will be available to Canadian citizens as they need them if this law passes. We are talking about being prepared for the future, when all people travelling into the United States will need passports.
In conclusion, let me note that we have new legislation before us but again well after the fact of it being put in place by order in council, legislation that contains terms like “arrangements”, and it is difficult to determine how it will be used in the future. Those questions are yet to be answered, but Bill C-26 was firmly entrenched by order in council long before the legislation came to the House to be discussed.
A new agency is being created but we have no real assurances that the three legacy agencies that these people came from will be in any way reduced by the same numbers or dollars. Have we just created a new agency that will spend money, admittedly on what is a very good point? Have the other agencies been reduced by that amount or are we simply growing the bureaucracy here in Canada?
We have a new agency working on our border, but have we addressed the real issue? As I stated earlier, the real issue is infrastructure, that is, the ability to get cars and trucks and people across the border. We have created a new agency to ensure that people, cars and trucks cross the border safely, but the government needs to quit dragging its feet on new border infrastructure, specifically in the southwestern Ontario area.
In my own riding of Elgin--Middlesex--London, we have a lot of dealings with the automotive business. We have many parts plants that supply manufacturing facilities on either side of the border. We have been stressed lately by the fact that just in time delivery needs to take place but the parts are not getting there. New decisions are being made and parts plants are locating in Michigan, Ohio or upstate New York instead of southern Ontario, where they could be providing good jobs for Canadians, because they cannot be sure that the border is open enough for them to get their parts across.
The bottleneck must be fixed. It will not be fixed by an agency. It will be fixed by this government or perhaps a good future Conservative government getting at the infrastructure problems.
We have a new agency but does this new agency have the resources to protect the border guards who are currently working? We continually hear of people working alone at unarmed border crossings. This needs to change.
I will be supporting this legislation, but as can be heard from my comments, it is perhaps not to the standards Canadians are looking for, and perhaps it needs a little more work before it comes back.
(1535)
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know the member well. He is very concerned, as most Canadians are, about the free flow of goods and services across the border.
I spoke earlier on this bill. I honestly believe that those who wish to cause some security threat to Canada need only choke our economy; it effectively will achieve the same thing. Very clearly, it is essential that the scope of this new agency cover not only the security provisions but also facilitate the free flow of goods and services.
I would give another speech if I could, but maybe I will just ask the member about the arming of our border guards. This has been discussed for some time. In fact, the unions have asked for it, and I know that the U.S. counterparts have had it for some time.
I am not sure whether or not the information is out there that has been given to members of the House about incidents. What evidence is there that this is going to in fact provide a greater level of protection against something that is a high risk? What potential consequences could it have for creating maybe even more impediments to the free flow of goods and services where the possession of a firearm may also involve more stringent activities by those border guards in the conduct of their services?
(1540)
Mr. Joe Preston: Mr. Speaker, I will handle the last question first, the point on the arming of border guards. We are asking our border agency and our border guards, the men and women under service to Canada who are protecting our borders, to work alone and to work in isolated areas. They have been asking, for their own protection, for the arming of the border guards.
We are talking not so much about the free flow of goods but the free flow of people, and from a terrorist threat point of view, this may have accelerated the request by the border guards that this happen.
In the first part of his question, the member talked about the free flow of goods. We certainly have seen instances of this, specifically in southwestern Ontario,. Two weekends ago, a substance was spilled on the Rainbow bridge in Niagara which closed the bridge for six hours and created an absolute mess at all of the border crossings in the Niagara-Fort Erie area because of the diversion of products that way.
In the House this morning, a member mentioned how four lanes of traffic crossing the Ambassador bridge in Detroit is about half of the volume of Canada-U.S. trade. The member opposite mentioned economic terrorism. It gets to be exactly that. I have parts plants in southern Ontario faced with economic terrorism. Their ability to do business is gone simply because the border is clogged. Their ability to do business with American firms has been taken away from them.
That is economic terrorism as far as the small businesses and major employers of southwestern Ontario are concerned. We also need to be able to unclog that bottleneck with infrastructure changes.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Wild Rose, with a very brief question.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, CPC): It is a brief question, Mr. Speaker, thanks to that guy from Mississauga. He always goes on too long.
In 1994 my colleague from Calgary Northeast and my colleague from Okanagan--Shuswap were asked by the leader of our party, then the Reform party, and our then critic of the solicitor general, my colleague from Crowfoot, to do some border work.
We came up with a report that included the following: too many lone staffers at various stations along the border, blow-bys happening continually, and trucks going by without being inspected. We reported that we needed a lot more protection for the guards at the border because of red flags for vehicles coming through. We reported understaffing across the entire border line, containers at ports not being inspected, and boats going back and forth in certain areas and not being stopped and checked.
These things were discovered and reported in 1994. Now, in 2005, we are getting the same reports. Does this tell the member that the government is either incompetent or just does not care?
Mr. Joe Preston: Briefly, Mr. Speaker, it sounds like both. It sounds like a great study was done in 1994 and made sense. As I said in my comments, we have paralysis by analysis. We have too many studies and not enough action happening. Perhaps we need to get at it.
Mr. Russ Hiebert (South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to rise and address Bill C-26, an act to establish the Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA. The House will be aware that our party is supporting this legislation.
However, I want to state that I am unimpressed with the government over the timing of the bill. The administration created the CBSA in December of 2003, more than a year and a half ago and, perhaps even more disturbing, during the last Parliament. Time and again we see the government creating new departments and agencies and spending money before Parliament has authorized those actions.
Liberals demonstrate no respect for this institution. This is nothing more than sheer arrogance on the part of the government. Nevertheless, the bill represents an important step forward in the effort to bring our antiquated system of national security into the 21st century.
Creating a single agency to provide border services and security at ports of entry is a logical and long overdue action. Of course, providing our border services officers with the resources, training and equipment they need to do this job is another matter entirely, and it has become quite clear to me that the government has failed to deliver on this critical aspect of the plan.
Yes, the government has made spending announcements and even provided for such spending in recent budgets, yet the reality is that those resources are not getting to the front lines.
The famous Peace Arch crossing is in my riding of South Surrey--White Rock--Cloverdale. As a border MP representing the riding with western Canada's busiest land crossings, I regularly receive reams of information about border ports that are understaffed, under-equipped and completely unprotected.
That leaves our unarmed border services officers vulnerable. Often, the closest armed police presence is many minutes or even hours away. That is unacceptable. I want to share a story as it has been relayed to me by people at the front lines:
|
Regarding the currency seizure of $292,125 USD in early April - there is no secure manner in which to count proceeds of crime. Pacific Highway Traffic office is made primarily out of windows. During that currency seizure, as with most, the money was counted in an unsecured room with windows on three sides, looking out into the lanes of traffic and the public areas. During the day the windows are somewhat opaque. At night the windows became completely transparent because the office lights are on. Pedestrians who were walking into Canada were able to observe the goings on of the Inspectors inside the office as well as the counting of almost three hundred thousand dollars, which took about 7 hours. The Mounties attended for about an hour, then left. Management views Proceeds of Crime seizures as commodity seizures plain and simple. They must not understand the “Crime” part of Proceeds of Crime and that we are dealing with a high risk seizure with many individuals having a vested interest in the smuggled cash. |
The proof of what I hear is to be found in the constant reports of vehicles speeding through land crossings, with 1,600 last year alone. This is not just a matter of a union complaining for the sake of its workers, although they are certainly right to push for safer conditions. This is about national security. What were those vehicles carrying? Were they carrying narcotics, weapons, contraband cigarettes and liquor, or even fugitives from justice? Who knows?
The Deputy Prime Minister has boasted about the work of the integrated border enforcement teams. That is great, but it is only part of the solution. Those teams can crack down on smuggling at isolated spots on the border, but if we are allowing hundreds of vehicles to simply zip across the border on the highways, unchecked, then are we any further ahead? I think not.
It is now the policy of the CBSA to wave through suspects who are known to be armed and dangerous instead of confronting and arresting those who are a threat to Canada when we have the opportunity to do so. We simply wave them through and hope that the police will catch up to them later in our neighbourhoods. This Liberal policy is so confused that it would be laughable if it were not so dangerous.
(1545)
The other comment I want to make about national security concerns the gaping hole the Liberals created when they disbanded the ports police in 1994. It is quite clear, from reading criminal intelligence service reports and other reports, that smuggling through Canada's ports is a major problem that remains largely unaddressed, despite a minor police and CBSA presence at many ports. Even if we were to tighten up on the cars and trucks that make land crossings, our national security appears to be something one could still drive a ship through.
In an internal RCMP intelligence assessment, Canadian ports have become a haven for organized crime. According to the report, customs and police feel threatened, while workers are coerced to do crimes. Organized criminal involvement in the smuggling of drugs, humans and counterfeit products at Canada's biggest marine ports is so pervasive that customs officers and police have been intimidated and even independent thieves will not dare to work alone.
The Liberal's newly appointed ambassador to the United States has affirmed what our border officers are saying. He made it clear last weekend that our borders were not adequately protected. Frank McKenna made it clear that we have a major problem with narcotics and weapons making it into Canada. Even senior Liberals are now admitting to the government's failure to address this issue adequately.
We can pass the bill, and we will, but let us be clear that this is not the solution to our national security problems at the border. It is only the beginning.
It is because we have such problems at our border that I have taken steps myself to address these questions. In December of last year, I was joined by border MPs from every party in the House and from every part of the country in founding the parliamentary border caucus.
Our co-chairs, the member for Sarnia—Lambton, the member for Windsor West, the member for Saint-Jean and myself have led this non-partisan caucus in addressing matters of national security and trade.
We spent time meeting with the employees and managers of the border services agency and their union leaders. We have travelled to see the problems that exist at our border crossings in different parts of the country firsthand. It is obvious to us that Bill C-26 is not the only action that needs to be taken.
For example, our caucus recently met in Windsor, Ontario, the site of the world's busiest border crossing, to discuss with representatives of the U.S. congressional border caucus, including their co-chairman representative, Bart Stupak, the importance of moving on a new crossing in that area.
Forty-four percent of Canada-U.S. trade crosses at Windsor. If there is a main artery in our economy, this is it and yet, after 12 years of Liberal government, there is no enabling statute to even facilitate the creation of a new crossing. Bill C-44, elements of which could be of some assistance in making a new Windsor crossing a reality, languishes at first reading, and the Liberal government has not even given it an hour of debate since introducing it this past March.
Also, waiting times at some border crossings, especially for commercial traffic, are unacceptable, and the cost to the Canadian economy, not to mention to truckers and their families, is millions of dollars in lost income. Some of this is a result of security measures put in place on the U.S. since 9/11, which Canadians have not fully adapted to yet, but some of it is a matter of inadequate facilities and infrastructure on our side.
The issue of a passport requirement for all travellers to the U.S. was raised recently in the media. While the U.S. legislation requiring secure ID does not specifically require passports, the possibility has raised concerns on both sides of the border.
I have personally travelled to Washington, D.C. on more than one occasion to meet with congressman James Sensenbrenner, the chairman of the U.S. judiciary committee, to work on an acceptable resolution. However I do not believe the hasty response of the Deputy Prime Minister, that Canada might require passports as well, has done anything to help the situation.
By all means, let us pass Bill C-26, but I would urge this government, at a bare minimum, to begin to provide proper protection, support, resources and equipment for our border services officers and provide the resources to apprehend suspects at the border.
(1550)
Let us move on enabling legislation for creating new bridges and tunnels to the U.S. Let us work with our counterparts in the U.S., as the border caucus has already been doing, to reduce waiting times, protect trade and maintain our privileged access to the world's largest market.
(1555)
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to ask a question of my colleague who, I would be open to say, has done an excellent job with the border caucus. He has put a lot of energy behind it and has worked very diligently to ensure that a non-partisan atmosphere has happened in terms of the border caucus.
I would like to ask him a simple question with regard to the process that he has talked about today. How could the government in general do a better job of being proactive on issues? He mentioned the issue of passports. I have a concern that Canadian passports may be seen as less effective or may be suspect, which is why I put forward a motion with regard to a full auditing process in our passport offices. I want to make sure it does not become a profit zone for Canadians who have to renew passports or put in applications for other relatives when they travel to the United States.
I would like to ask for his thoughts on that issue and also how it might affect Canadian tourism for example. I know in British Columbia, which is where he is from, it receives a lot of tourists. The concern is that if Americans are required to have passports now they will have to go to their offices and could spend hundreds of dollars to acquire American passports to get back into their country. What can we do as a country?
I have pushed for Industry Canada to do a study. At first it said it would only designate $40,000 for a study on the effects of cross-border trade and tourism. It has now increased that to over $100,000 but it is still not sufficient. I would like to know his thoughts on this issue because it is very important for the whole country.
Mr. Russ Hiebert: Mr. Speaker, the issue of the intelligence bill that has been passed in congress which would require Americans to have passports to the United States is important . The impact of it is hard to fathom. With so many Canadians and Americans crossing the border on a daily basis, it is hard to imagine what impact the law of requiring a passport would have on cross-border tourism and trade.
I have no doubt that if both Americans and Canadians were required to have passports things would come to a standstill at the border with respect to tourism. We know that about 40% of Canadians and about one-quarter of Americans have a passport. For 60% of Canadians and 75% of Americans to get a passport in the next year and a half before the legislation comes into effect in January 2007 for air travel and January 1, 2008 for land travel, it would be an enormous burden on administration as far as the passport office is concerned.
The impacts are far greater. Many people cross the border on a whim, whether it is to get gas, buy milk, get their skates sharpened or who knows what, perhaps respond to an emergency. We have been friends and neighbours for more than a century and anything that would impede traffic across the border, such as this requirement, would have a huge consequence and impact on our cultures.
He wants to know what can be done. I think a lot can be done. First, more members of Parliament need to go to Washington and speak with members of congress, as he and the other members of the border caucus have done, to raise this issue with them. We need to heighten the level of alertness with respect to the impact of this legislation.
We also need to make formal submissions to the U.S. congress. Canadians will have about a 60 day window of opportunity to respond to the legislation and for us to give our feedback. I would encourage all members of Parliament in the House to take the opportunity to send a letter of comment on the impact.
The member's suggestion about requesting a report from Industry Canada is a good one. I think we need to have bright minds on this part of the border issue looking at the impacts and possible resolutions to the problem. The suggestions that I have outlined are a good first step. We do not want to get into a situation, especially in British Columbia where the Olympics will be held in just a few years, where Canadians and Americans are impeded from crossing the border simply because a passport is required.
The legislation makes it clear that other forms of documentation, perhaps a combination of documents, such as a driver's licence, a citizenship card or a birth certificate, might be sufficient. I am working with James Sensenbrenner and his office in Washington to hopefully find these kinds of solutions, but the time is now for us to act on these very important issues.
(1600)
Mr. Wajid Khan (Mississauga—Streetsville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I compliment the hon. members across for their good work as a border caucus and I would be delighted to work with them. I am pleased to add my voice of support to this worthy legislation.
There are all sorts of good reasons to back the bill. Other speakers have already noted the many ways the legislation would enhance national security while facilitating trade and travel at the border. Another compelling reason to adopt the legislation, which is pretty simple, is that it would give better service to Canadians.
The creation of the Canada border services agency was a deliberate decision to bring all the players with a role at the border under one umbrella to improve the quality and effectiveness of border services. For the first time, employees from customs services, areas of Citizenship and Immigration Canada's enforcement and intelligence services and port of entry immigration program, and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency import inspection at ports of entry program are working side by side. As a team, they are now able to advance their shared agenda of protecting Canadians' health, security and economic prosperity from harmful and illegal traffic, as well as unlawful attempts to cross our borders.
Because of this amalgamation, the CBSA can coordinate its activities across functions and operations to provide even better programs and services than before. The agency is now a single repository of a wealth of experience, skill, dedication and innovation in border management.
Many of the great successes we have achieved in recent years have been the result of the excellent work of the CBSA's founding partners. However merging these closely related responsibilities and operating as one agency means they can build on each other's skills and knowledge and take them to the next level.
As they see how all the pieces fit together, they can begin to identify where there may be duplication of effort, where they complement each other and where there are gaps. They can also explore where they might realign their activities and resources to respond more swiftly and effectively to any and all threats arriving at the border.
Many of the improvements will likely be invisible to the public as they are being achieved through the integration of activities and increased efficiencies among departments and agencies, something all members of this House and all Canadians undoubtedly approve. We fully understand that taxpayers expect the best possible return on their investments in border security, so it makes good sense to ensure the integration of all the partners sharing border related duties.
To better serve Canadians, the CBSA has received additional funding in budget 2005 to enhance its capacity to respond to increased demands, to address key congestion and security issues, and to expedite the flow of legitimate travellers and trade at key border locations, as mentioned by my colleague opposite.
With this funding, the CBSA would be in a better position to manage the access of people and goods to and from Canada and to respond to increased demands at key border locations across the country without compromising security.
A safe and secure Canada requires vigilance at all points of entry, whether by land, air or sea. Government departments are collaborating with one another and our U.S. counterparts to identify vulnerabilities in Canada's marine transportation system, and to develop integrated solutions.
The structure of the CBSA will enable it to capitalize on the power of technology, partnerships and the skills of dedicated public servants to better meet clients' needs. From the point of view of business, that means speeding up and simplifying inspection processes.
(1605)
The Government of Canada is fully sensitized to the business perspective on cross border security. With two way trade between Canada and the United States worth roughly $2 billion a day, we recognize that security measures at our ports of entry are critically important to our economy. We understand that our prosperity depends on our relationship with the United States and other international trading partners. This in turn depends on the efficient flow of people and goods crossing our shared borders.
The CBSA's new integrated structure enables it to ensure consistency in the application of the laws it administers and to simplify processes that speed up inspection times. Both are essential to increase the competitiveness of Canadian businesses, both domestically and globally.
Aligning customs processes seeks to reduce the costs involved in border trade by providing companies with a simplified set of procedures for importing goods into either Canada or the U.S., whether those goods travel by train, truck, ship or plane. The benefits of increased interoperability extend beyond the business community to our partners and government, both here at home as well as governments abroad. Borders are no longer limited to lines between nations. In the 21st century a multiple border strategy is required to interdict high risk travellers and cargo even before it reaches our respective shores.
The greater our capacity to collect and share information with each other, the greater assurance of our shared security. We have proven the advantages of this approach through our work with our U.S. colleagues under a smart border accord and through initiatives aimed at pushing the borders out. By having the right people working with the right information and at the right place at the right time, CBSA officers can separate low risk from high risk travellers and cargo as they can concentrate on inadmissible people, food and agricultural products, or dangerous goods.
In so doing, they protect the health and safety of our constituents while ensuring that they continue to enjoy the benefits of a strong economy and an open society, and they maintain the confidence of our trading partners who want to be assured that our borders are secure.
As a result of increased interoperability and intelligence capacity, the CBSA is in a better position to expand its activities with our major trading partners to merge best practices and to develop more joint programs. Perhaps the greatest value of the CBSA's integration is that it helps ensure that we achieve the proper balance between security and facilitation of trade and travel.
My hon. colleagues can rest assured that we are not prepared to compromise our international reputation as an open society. By taking an integrated and multifaceted approach to border management, the agency will help us open the front door wider to immigrants, skilled workers, and investment and trade opportunities Canada wants to attract while closing the back door to those who threaten our security or potentially abuse our system.
The CBSA is a powerful new vehicle to anticipate, through improved intelligence, any risks to our security looming on the horizon. It is also about working smarter through increased integration to address those risks head on. It is, most of all, a new and better way to address border issues in a way that maintains our standard of living and quality of life.
That is the kind of service Canadians expect and what the new Canada border services agency is designed to deliver. This is both a great need and a strong case for the bill. I encourage my colleagues to provide speedy passage of the legislation to let the people of the CBSA get on with the business of safeguarding our country and economy. I appreciate the comments made by my colleagues and the collaborative effort toward border security.
(1610)
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, CPC): Madam Speaker, I know that this member is pretty new to this House. I would like to make a comment and then pose a question to him. The comment will reflect the amount of time that I have spent in the House and certainly, border issues were on the table long before this bill was ever introduced.
In fact, I can reflect back to 1994 and the disbandment of the ports police, a dedicated force that was stationed at every harbour in the country that was of significance. I remember the controversy about the disbandment of that particular organization.
I can also reflect back over the disbandment of the tracker units that were designed strictly to go after illegal entrants, foreign criminals, as they made their way into this country. That unit specialized in tracking people down who were of that ilk. However, the Liberal government of the day chose to disband it.
I would like the member, since he has made a thorough presentation offering support for this particular bill, to tell this House what problems arose in this country after the ports police was disbanded and how Bill C-26 would fix it?
Mr. Wajid Khan: Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague has obviously far more experience than I have and is aware of that particular issue more than I am.
I can tell the member that under the current circumstances our border security issue is perhaps a little different than it was back then. I am not belittling the need for what was there before, but I am more concerned about people, goods travelling across the border, increased flow for business, as well as the coordination of efforts by different agencies to stop those who do not belong here and keep them out before they reach our shores.
To that end, I would like to add that there has been $433 million put in budget 2005 over five years. This was to support this whole mandate, including health and safety of our border officers and augmenting the tools available to them to perform exactly the work that the hon. member is concerned about.
Mr. Art Hanger: That does not fix it. What does it fix?
Mr. Wajid Khan: I hope it is a fix. We may have to go further than that, but these things are strong initiatives that address the issues of today.
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP): Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question regarding the Windsor area because I know the hon. member has visited there.
Since 9/11 a number of different communities have been ethnically and racially profiled and have had to go onto an NSEERS program, which is now US-VISIT. One of the groups affected right now is Pakistani Canadians. They used to be nationals at the time, became Canadian citizens and cannot get scrubbed off the NSEERS list, which is now the US-VISIT. So we have Canadian citizens going to work who are being pulled over, asked for biometrics, and treated below Canada's standards.
I have been pushing this issue with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who has yet to respond to this atrocious behaviour. Canadian citizens are being treated differently because of where they came from. What is the hon. member's government doing about secondary citizenship on the border? We have different communities being racially and ethnically profiled because all the government does is send it off to be dealt by the American consulate general outside this country. The minister has yet to take a position. What is the hon. member's position and what is he going to do about it?
Mr. Wajid Khan: Madam Speaker, I am touched by the question and by the passion with which the hon. member has posed it. I think the issue is there, but it is definitely not as grave as the member has said. I have been to the United States hundreds of times since 9/11. My family has been there, my friends have travelled there, and under the new rules, perhaps people are being stopped; however,--
Mr. Brian Masse: As long as you're not a victim.
Mr. Wajid Khan: I certainly have not experienced that.
The issue is still there and our government is addressing it. Our foreign office is in consultation with our partners down south, and I hope there will be progress soon.
(1615)
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, CPC): Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Calgary Centre.
The Canadian border services agency was created by an order in council, so what we are seeing in the bill has actually been created by an order in council and not a lot will change from the current circumstances.
We know there is a difference between the way the U.S. and Canada are approaching their border crossings to a significant degree. The U.S., since 9/11, is primarily security focused and the Canadian government still tends to look at our border facilities as though they are primarily related to trade.
If we were to keep our border crossings, ports and airports, where all of this comes into play to facilitate the movement of people and goods, then we would have to operate in a way that would also meet security needs. One is unavoidably attached to the other in the current world.
We have before us now a situation where the Canadian government is not holding up its end on several fronts when it comes to ensuring that the Canadian border will remain a viable conduit for people and goods.
We have seen some improvements. We had a very interesting witness at the industry committee last week, Mr. Garry Douglas from the New York-Quebec corridor. The main land bridge between Quebec and New York State, which is the main land entry point for all trade emanating from Quebec to the U.S., is being worked on. That is the fourth largest crossing in terms of value of goods. If one were to have a zero based look at the facilities at that crossing, one would rapidly come to the conclusion that the facilities are completely inadequate on both sides of the border.
Certainly, the U.S. side recognized that problem in 1999. The Americans started off with a $15 million budget and moved to a $30 million and are now at $107 million. They will basically erase all of the border facilities there and start over again. They will have state of the art technology. They will have all the disciplines there which means one stop shopping for trade and people. They will triple their staff and have new infrastructure. This is a new, state of the art facility.
What is the Canadian government doing? The answer is, nothing. The federal contribution is some money toward improving the highway, which is badly in need of improvements, but nothing in terms of the infrastructure at the border. As a matter of fact, in order to facilitate the U.S. changes, there is actually one building that must be moved, but there is no commitment at this point from the Canadian government to move that building.
(1620)
I could not believe what I had heard at committee, so I thought I would have a look at it. I made the crossing this past weekend in order to see for myself what is going on.
This area is rural. There is lots of room to create whatever kind of facility we want there. We are not constrained by topography or anything else. It is an ideal crossing. There are no bridges or impediments to creating an ideal crossing. The lack of commitment from the Canadian government is an increasing puzzle.
The shared concern of the Quebec and New York people who are part of this private-public partnership to create an economic engine through a proper border facility there is that if Canada does not participate in this exercise, then all that investment and infrastructure on the U.S. side will be turned into a security-focused facility. Rather than being a conduit and a passageway, it has the probability or the possibility of becoming a wall.
As much as we may agree with the bill and the direction of it and see it as a step forward, if the government does not move in its actions, not its words, in a way that contributes to what is in the national interests, then we have a major problem.
The truth of the matter is all of the trucks going south through this facility are loaded and many of the trucks going north are empty. We have an easier time clearing traffic than the U.S., but we have to keep up with the technology to ensure we operate at the same level and standard of behaviour as our U.S. partners at these border facilities. Otherwise we are creating a real problem.
We are the ones at risk because 82% of our trade needs to cross that border and does. Here is an example of something that needs to be improved.
I came back on the weekend at 5:30 in the afternoon. Three of the seven gates were open. There is not just a facility problem, there is a personnel problem. The public was asked to wait in the heat of the day for an inordinate amount of time, simply because we did not have more gates open. Apparently this is not unusual. This is the standard of behaviour we exhibit at that border on any given day when the demand is there to justify more people.
No one can quite understand why we operate in such an irrational fashion. I am pleading for some common sense to be brought into the whole area of border security. It is something that is definitely in the national interest. It does not just apply to this one border crossing. We have examples across the country of where this is applicable. However, we have a very clear example of where the U.S. is committing major moneys and we are doing nothing.
(1625)
I appeal to the government to do a zero based look at what we need across the country. What could we build if there were no facilities and find out what standard we need to reach. That should be our national strategy.
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to ask my colleague a question. He has spoken of a number of different issues.
I would like to zero in on one in particular. It is the legacy costs that have been supported by the government for certain border proponents for which their custom officials are paid. For example, in my region the Ambassador Bridge receives around $13 million a year for customs officers and the Windsor-Detroit tunnel receives around $11 million for customs officers.
The ferry service, which is a solution for the community, is frozen out of that since it was not part of the grandfathering which happened I believe in 1987. It has to add that cost on to the border. It has prohibited the service competing because it has to pay for the service, which is hundreds of thousands of dollars. Sometimes it is not even granted access to paying for those officers, which is interesting as well because peculiarities develop. For example, during lunch hour the customs people leave for an hour and a half and the border literally shuts down for the ferry service.
I would like to ask the hon. member about those kinds of situations. I believe he has one in his riding related to an airport where an operator is trying to enter into the market but has to compete against a system that was grandfathered. It incurs extra costs which makes it more difficult for it to be a solution to the movement of people across the border, from Canada to the United States.
Mr. John Duncan: Madam Speaker, the member for Windsor West and I sit on the same committee. We have heard the same witnesses. We have had discussions about the inappropriateness of the grandfathering on customs charges that occurs in some specific examples.
Yes, there is the example about which the member from Windsor talked. In my constituency, the community of Comox built a brand new air terminal. WestJet uses it. Last year there were 180,000 passengers. There are international flights to Mexico. Because it did not have any international flights prior to the grandfathering date, the community is responsible for $250,000 worth of customs charges. This is not discretionary in any way.
What happens is communities that are trying to better themselves are being penalized by this system. It is extraordinary how dampening this is. This charge killed flights between Seattle and Kamloops. This very issue apparently killed the ferry run between Toronto and Rochester. The economics were all there except for the grandfathering charge.
We say this is a security charge, a security fee. It is a federal responsibility. It should not be offloaded in a discriminatory way to business or communities in this fashion.
(1630)
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine): Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Hon Jean Augustine): The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
* * *
Statistics Act
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.) moved that Bill S-18, An Act to amend the Statistics Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Lloyd St. Amand (Brant, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to present the House with Bill S-18, an act to amend the Statistics Act. The bill would address and finally resolve an issue that has been long outstanding, namely the question of access to historical census records.
No doubt the House would agree that access to these records can provide a rich and valuable means by which both family and historical research is conducted. Indeed, genealogists and historical researchers, without exception, view publicly available historical census records as essential tools in their work.
The other key aspect of the bill, for not only does it address a current dilemma, is it would enable Canadians a clear and unequivocal say in how they would like their personal information on census records to be used in the future. Canadians would be given the option of giving permission for the release of their personal information on the census questionnaire.
The genesis of the issue of public access to historical census records and why there is a need for Bill S-18 goes back many years.
As it currently stands, at issue is the legal ambiguity as to the authority of the chief statistician of Canada to release records from the 1911 census of population. That the records from this census have not yet been released has caused much outcry and consternation among the genealogical community. I believe many members of the House have received numerous pieces of correspondence from their constituents in relation to this matter.
In essence, Bill S-18 would provide a fitting solution to this issue by removing this legal ambiguity in relation to the release to the public of census records between 1911 and 2001, not just records from the 1911 census.
The bill then addresses not only the issue of historical access as it relates to censuses already conducted, it also sets the framework for the issue of access to future census records.
Beginning with the 2006 census and in any to follow, Statistics Canada would ask on the questionnaire for the consent of Canadians to release their census information, once again 92 years after each census. An individual's census records would be released only when consent was given. If consent were not given, the census records of that individual would never be made publicly available.
A third aspect of the bill would ensure accountability on behalf of both Statistics Canada and the government. Bill S-18 would establish that a parliamentary review must occur no later than two years before the 2016 census of population. The committee's review would report on the administration of the informed consent requirement outlined in the bill and if necessary, suggest changes to its operation and administration.
The issue of access to historical census records has itself a substantial and interesting history. I would like to share with my hon. colleagues a brief summary so they can perhaps appreciate why now is the time to resolve this longstanding issue.
Censuses have long been a fascinating and valuable historical record of the growth of Canada and Canada's heritage. Hon. members should note that the first census was conducted in 1666 by Jean Talon. At that time, he reported that there were only 3,215 inhabitants in the colony of New France. As our country grew, it was the regular censuses that bore witness to this growth and to the changes which took place. Finding a resolution to the issue of access to historical census records has seen the passing of many years and has taken many paths
(1635)
In late 1999 the hon. John Manley called for the creation of an expert panel on access to historical census records which reported to him in May 2000. Its mandate was to examine the legal, privacy and archival implications of providing access to historical census records. Statistics Canada itself undertook public consultations on this issue in 2001. These were consultations across the country so as to gather Canadians' views on both confidentiality of census information and access to historical records. Both of these undertakings provided valuable guidance to the government on how it should proceed.
Following the full discussion and examination of all options, in January 2003 the government announced that there was a need to clarify the Statistics Act and the legislation would be drafted. At the same time it also announced the release of returns from the 1906 census. That census was a special census only conducted in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. It collected limited and less sensitive information, such as name, address, age, sex, marital status and origin.
The release was applauded by members of the genealogical community who had long encouraged the government to authorize the release of information from the 1906 census. Given the 100th anniversary of the entry of Alberta and Saskatchewan into Confederation, the public release of the 1906 census records has been of significant interest.
In response to recognition that legislation to amend the Statistics Act was necessary, Bill S-13 was introduced in the other place in February 2003. Some hon. members may recall that the bill was debated in this House in the fall of 2003, but that bill died on the order paper. Hence, Bill S-18 now before the House is our second attempt to resolve this issue.
I would like to take a moment to briefly point out a key difference between Bill S-13 and Bill S-18. It illustrates the government's resolve to settle this issue. In the former bill, Bill S-13, there were certain conditions placed on the release of information after 92 years. These conditions would have restricted disclosure to what is commonly known as tombstone data, such as name, age, date of birth, marital status, to the person's own family and would be imposed on the information for an additional 20 years. Historians and researchers would also have had to sign a document agreeing to these restrictions before being granted access to census records.
The government listened to the concerns of Canadians who felt that these additional conditions outlined in Bill S-13 were too restrictive and too burdensome. The outcome, I am pleased to say, is that no such conditions are present in Bill S-18. All census information will be released without restrictions after 92 years have passed.
To conclude my resumé of the history of this issue, I would bring to the attention of the House that in June 2004 there was a Federal Court decision related to the access of historical census records. In his decision the hon. Mr. Justice Gibson ruled that care and control of the 1911 census records rests with the chief statistician. He also ruled that there was no legal obligation under current law which would compel the chief statistician to transfer these records to the National Archives without an agreement between both parties. In his ruling he also suggested that resolution of this matter is best left to the government to address. This is something that Bill S-18 does.
Hon. members would no doubt join me in agreement when I suggest that Statistics Canada is internationally recognized as one of the top statistical agencies in the world. This is due in no small part to the professionalism and commitment of its staff members and the strong leadership provided by its management.
(1640)
The agency is ably guided by the strengths and thoroughness of the Statistics Act, because it not only establishes its mandate but provides well articulated guidance on how the agency must be run. It is in section 17 of the Statistics Act that the all important confidentiality provisions are outlined vis-à-vis the protection of information collected by Statistics Canada.
As I have already noted, it is this provision of confidentiality that is at the heart of Statistics Canada's reputation. Protecting confidentiality of the information that it collects under the Statistics Act is a value upheld by all of its employees every working day through the numerous practices in place in policies and in work arrangements.
Section 18 of the same act identifies that information received by Statistics Canada is privileged information and shall not be used as evidence in any proceedings. Because of these two sections, the bonds of confidentiality are strong, especially when it comes to the personal information of all Canadians.
At the crux of the matter, when one examines both the current Statistics Act and previous legislation such as the Statistics Act of 1918 that created the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, is whether the chief statistician can authorize any release of census records collected.
Over the past 10 years there have been various legal opinions on whether records from those earlier censuses could be disclosed. While discussions have focused on the legal ambiguities related to the 1911 census records, there is far less ambiguity in regard to censuses conducted after 1918 when the Dominion Bureau of Statistics was created.
For records from the 1921 census up to current day, an amendment is required to make those records available to the public. Under an amended Statistics Act, any legal ambiguity would be removed and the chief statistician would be required to transfer census records to the care and control of Library and Archives Canada once 92 years had passed. Therefore, the ambiguity that currently exists would be eliminated.
Informed consent about the use of personal information is a key principle of privacy protection. Therefore, it follows that Canadians should have the right to decide for themselves if they want their personal census records to be made publicly available in the future. Bill S-18 would give Canadians the option for the first time to provide consent for the release of their own information 92 years after the census had been conducted. Plans call for such a question to be asked on the questionnaire of the next census of population, which will conducted in May 2006.
The multitude of persons who serve as privacy protection advocates and supporters either in a formal or informal capacity would be the first to agree that informed consent about the use of personal information is a key principle of privacy protection. To many it is a right afforded to all. Bill S-18 will provide the legal basis under which this consent could be offered and upheld.
A third and equally important point of Bill S-18 is that it calls for parliamentary review in 2014. A committee of this House, the other place, or both houses of Parliament would review the administration and operation of the subsections related to the informed consent provision. By that time, the year 2014, there will have been two censuses in which Canadians will have been asked for their permission to release the personal information. How they have responded will provide an indication of how Canadians view this issue and how they wish their government to respect their wishes.
(1645)
As in the parliamentary tradition, the committee would permit an opportunity for interested parties to make their views known. In its final report the committee would be able to recommend any changes it saw fit to the administration of the provision that would be in place in time for the conduct of the census of population in 2016.
In fact, subject to the passage of the proposed amendment to the Statistics Act, the 1911 census records would be released immediately. Undoubtedly this action would be applauded as well as appreciated by genealogists and historical researchers all across Canada.
I would like to point out that for the 2006 census and subsequent censuses, Statistics Canada has already made a commitment as part of its census communications program to explain to Canadians the importance of their giving consent to allow access to their census records. This initiative would be conducted in conjunction with Library and Archives Canada.
As well, Statistics Canada will establish a program that would allow Canadians to change their responses to the consent question at any time during the 92 year period prior to public release. For example, children may not agree with the response provided on their behalf by their parent or guardian to the consent question and may now wish to change it. Those children will have the right to review what response was provided, and if necessary, request a change accordingly which will thereafter be processed by Statistics Canada.
This right to change one's mind is not limited in any way. In fact, all Canadians will retain the option, even in cases in which a person answered one way but subsequently changed his or her mind following a census.
In conclusion, Bill S-18 will at long last resolve the issue of access to historical census records as well as establish a procedure by which Canadians will have more say in how their personal census information will be used.
As evidenced by the many years of discussion and debate on this issue, support for Bill S-18 will show Canadians that a fair and balanced solution has been reached. Because of that, it is a win-win situation, both for those who want access after a well-established period of time, and those whose concerns focus on the protection of personal information.
Bill S-18 is a compromise which should please all parties. I urge hon. members to join me in the passage of this bill and its reference to committee as soon as possible.
(1650)
Mr. David Tilson (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC): Madam Speaker, the member's speech was obviously well researched. It deals with a very difficult issue that has been going on for some time, that is, trying to find the balance between privacy and the seeking of genealogical or historical information. It is a very difficult topic.
There is an issue I would raise with my colleague. I look at the details of the fifth census of Canada, the 1911 census, and I look at the questions that are now going to be asked in the 2006 census. They are very personal questions. We are all concerned about our privacy. Now with this legislation, and I am talking about the period of time after 1911, there are no restrictions. This legislation will have absolutely no restrictions. That information will all be released. Some people want that, but if we look at the 1911 census and the questions that were asked, the information was not as detailed as it is now but it is still very personal information.
There is a whole group of people who are still alive, who filled out those forms in 1911. The problem is the promise by the chief statistician that all the information at that time would be protected is being broken. That promise to keep that information confidential is being broken by the government.
I would like the member to comment on the discrepancy between the time after 2006, when there will have to be consent to release the information, and simply from 1911 to I believe 2002, when it is just going to be released.
Mr. Lloyd St. Amand: Madam Speaker, as my hon. colleague across the floor said, the legislation attempts to balance the longstanding right of privacy of individuals with the understandable desire on the part of researchers and genealogists to enhance our understanding of Canada's past by the release of records.
The legislation and the bill is intended to be forward looking. The member is correct. Henceforth, Canadians will have the fundamental right to prohibit the release of any information contained in the census records. Henceforth, privacy rights will be fundamentally protected.
With respect to past censuses, the truth is that census questionnaires now are much more detailed, much more intrusive or probing than was the case decades ago.
For the most part, the information set out in earlier censuses, and I am talking about censuses from some years and decades ago, is in fact the proverbial tombstone data: name, age, sex, date of birth, place of birth, et cetera.
Hon. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I appreciated the way the member for Brant laid out this problem and the question of balancing confidentiality and the desirability of having statistics of various sorts.
I have to say, partly in answer to my colleague opposite, that over the last several years, as this legislation in different forms or this problem has been around, I have had a steady stream of requests from people who wanted us to change the way the census information from 1911 onwards, or whatever it is, will be released. What impressed me about that has been the fact that these were highly professional people, historians, demographers or something like this, who were very keen and had a professional interest in obtaining the information.
We also had all sorts lay people who were interested in geneology and other aspects of Canada in those days. These are people who now work in a much more sophisticated way through computers than they used to. One of the reasons they are able to do that is that Canada has become much more sophisticated.
The member for Brant complimented Statistics Canada, which truly is an example to the whole world. However ordinary people can now access information in sophisticated ways that were only possible to professionals.
Could my colleague tell me what I should say, in a short way, to all these people, which I think number in the thousands, who have asked me about this release of information? I cannot give his complete speech but I would like to give them hope that they will be able to get this information which they have sought for so long.
(1655)
Mr. Lloyd St. Amand: Madam Speaker, as my colleague has indicated, this has been a longstanding issue. He and, I dare say, many others in this House have heard from many constituents who have wanted this legislation to be put before the House of Commons.
The issue has been scrutinized and reviewed. It has been the subject of committee and the subject of recommendations. A suggestion in Mr. Justice Gibson's report was that this type of legislation be brought forward.
My hon. colleague can say to his constituents that the answer to their concerns and the answer to their query is found in the legislation.
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC): Madam Speaker, I want to seek a clarification. I believe the member said that the legislation would focus or limit itself to the release of tombstone information in response to an earlier question from my Conservative colleague.
I wonder if the member could clarify that. I am not certain whether that was the exact limit of the legislation. If he could clarify that I think it would address some of the concerns expressed by some members of the Conservative caucus with respect to privacy? Does the legislation just limit itself to basic tombstone information?
Mr. Lloyd St. Amand: Madam Speaker, when I used that expression in my speech and then in response to his colleague's question, I was making reference to earlier censuses which had been conducted by the Government of Canada and not necessarily census questionnaires that will be directed to Canadians in the future.
However in response to his concern that soon to be gathered census information will be too intrusive, I would only indicate that henceforth Canadians will have the right to prohibit the release of any census information whatsoever, a right that is now being granted to them for the first time.
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC): Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today to Bill S-18, an act to amend the Statistics Act.
At the outset I want to thank members of the Conservative caucus who have talked to me about the legislation. I know they have been contacted by thousands of Canadians across the country, genealogists, historians and others who have a real interest in preserving our history and tracing families and ancestors. I want to openly thank my colleagues who have contacted me about it.
I want to state at the outset that a lot of people have contacted my office wondering why the legislation has taken so long to get to this stage of the debate. I want to state again that we, in the Conservative Party, have been ready to debate the bill for over a month now. We are glad that it is before the House and we will do whatever we can to be as constructive as possible in terms of facilitating it through the legislative process.
We realize that many Canadians have been waiting patiently for the release of 1911 census data. The Conservative Party, in general, supports the release of basic tombstone information from Canadian census records after a 92 year period.
At this point I would like to pay tribute to two of my colleagues who have done a lot of work on this issue. First, the member for Calgary Southeast who introduced the motion in the House, which reads:
|
That, in the opinion of the House, the government should take all necessary steps to release the 1911 census records. Once they had been deposited in the National Archives in 2003, he was able to get the unanimous support of our party at that time. |
The motion was debated in March 2000 and yet here we are five years later and the 1911 census still has not been released.
I also want to publicly thank the member for Peace River. He was the industry critic prior to myself. He did a lot of work on this issue and his work formed the basis for the position that I will be announcing here today.
I want to get some background on the legislation. Bill S-18 is an act to amend the Statistics Act. It obviously has been a long time coming. It has had a couple of what people call false starts.
As we all know, census records are an invaluable source of information for those conducting historical and genealogical research. For instance, the 1906 census was a special census that was conducted only in the prairie provinces after the massive influx of immigrants at the turn of the century.
The release of the 1906 census generated more than 4 million hits in the first 12 days it was on line. The same story holds true for the 1901 census, which received more than 50 million hits for its first six months on line. In Canada we keep census information secret for a long period after the data is initially collected. We have kept census information secret for 92 years on average. That is 20 years longer than the Americans do in the Un