Hansard March 23/2005 Question Period: Border Security, Sponsorship Program, Terrorism

I have inserted a line after each section; note that there is more than one entry for each heading. I have also inserted some comments.



Hansard March 23/2005 Question Period

Border Security

Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, just to clarify it for the minister, the government is giving away the store and letting it all go down the sink.

[Translation]

Since September 11, the United States has added 1,000 border patrol officers to protect their borders. However, the Liberals are closing nine RCMP detachments that help protect the border between Quebec and the United States.

How can the government be improving our security when thousands of vehicles are crossing the Quebec border undetected?

[English]

Hon. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if we put this in context, first of all the government is totally committed to safe borders and smart borders. In fact in Texas today the governments of Mexico, the United States and Canada announced the establishment of the security and prosperity partnership of North America.

Last year 71 million people were processed by the Canada Border Services Agency at our ports of entry. Our government continues to invest in the Canada Border Services Agency. In fact in the last budget there is close to half a billion dollars that is going to the CBSA to increase our security capacity at our borders.

---

Sponsorship Program

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on March 3, 2004, the Minister of Transport stated, and I quote, “We have no intention of campaigning with tainted money”. However, the Liberal Party did exactly that. In fact, even though the Gomery commission's revelations are disturbing, as that same minister admits, to date, not one cent has been repaid.

To prevent the Liberal Party from running a fourth campaign with dirty money, could the Liberal government at least have the foresight to ask its party to establish a dirty money trust fund?

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been clear, as have the minister, the government and the party: if the party received funds from agencies or individuals your found guilty, the party has volunteered to repay taxpayers.

However, this is not possible until all the facts are known. Therefore, we must wait for Justice Gomery's report.

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what is clear is that they continue to live with this dirty money. Agencies stuffed their pockets with it; there is ample evidence of this. In fact, the government is taking them to court. The Liberal Party lined its coffers with it. There is just as much evidence of this too, but the Liberal government is protecting its party.

Could the government at least have the decency to ask the Liberal Party to put the dirty money into a special account, as the Minister of Transport said in March 2004. Instead of doing nothing, could it not create a trust fund to ensure that the money is there and that another campaign will not be run using dirty money?

(1430)

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, civil proceedings have already been launched to recover funds. However, the courts have not yet ruled, and Justice Gomery has not yet tabled his report. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that the party will act, but only in full knowledge of all the facts.

Mr. Michel Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the matter of the numerous individuals who received cheques from Commando Communication Marketing is so serious that one of these individuals had to resign from the cabinet of Jean Charest, in Quebec City, and others did not deny anything. That does not appear to be enough for the Liberal Party.

If these revelations are troubling, as he said, what is the Minister of Transport waiting for to put the sponsorship money received by the Liberal Party of Canada into a trust?
[English]

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again the transport minister has been clear, the Prime Minister has been clear, the government has been clear, and the party has been clear that in fact, any funds will be returned to the treasury, if they are proven to have been received inappropriately. However, we cannot do that unless we have all the facts.

The fact is that the Prime Minister deserves tremendous credit for having established Justice Gomery's inquiry to do exactly that, to get the facts and to make a difference so that we can make the proper decisions on a go forward basis.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, let us look at some cold, hard numbers. The Liberal Party of Canada received $270,000 from Groupaction and Gosselin Communication, plus $100,000 from Lafleur, $43,000 from Jacques Corriveau, $173,000 from IDA-Everest and $30,000 from Coffin. To date, in excess of $600,000 has been identified and has ended up in the coffers of the Liberal Party.

Does the minister not find this troubling enough—troubling was his word—to put this money into a trust?

[English]

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, allow me to quote from today's National Post editorial in reference to the party paying the treasury funds deemed inappropriate:

That may not require a separate lawsuit, as the opposition called for this week, if the party willingly returns however much money it obtained inappropriately

That is exactly what we have been saying all along. The party has said clearly that it will voluntarily return any funds deemed inappropriate, once we have all the facts and once Justice Gomery has submitted his report.

* * *

---

Border Security

Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in 2004 thousands of vehicles entered Canada without reporting to customs. In one three-week period, 17 vehicles blew through a major border crossing in Quebec. Quite obviously, law-abiding citizens were not behind the wheels of those vehicles.

Despite these statistics the Liberal government insists on shutting down border RCMP detachments in Quebec. My question is for the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. Why?

Hon. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the answer is very clear. Commissioner Zaccardelli of the RCMP said again very clearly at committee that this will improve and enhance the safety and security of Quebeckers and Canadians.

The reason is that the RCMP is able to get a critical mass of its officers so it can target terrorism and the enforcement of drug violations. This is an operational decision of the RCMP. It is a very wise one, we were told again yesterday.

Our government is investing in our borders. We are going to build capacity as we go forward.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, CPC): Mr. Speaker, concerned front line RCMP officers, in direct contradiction of the commissioner of the RCMP, insist that the closure of these detachments will result in more criminals crossing the border into Canada illegally.

Will the minister prevent the closure of the nine RCMP detachments along the U.S. border in Quebec as recommended by the justice committee and front line officers and allow the RCMP to simply do its job?

(1440)

Hon. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member opposite must have been at a different committee meeting than I was yesterday. The commissioner of the RCMP, Commissioner Zaccardelli, said very clearly that this consolidation of RCMP resources in the province of Quebec is going to increase the security and safety of Canadians and Quebeckers.

I should point out that the commissioner is obliged under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act for the effective and efficient enforcement of the laws and the administration of the force. This is an operational decision of the RCMP that will enhance the security of Quebeckers and Canadians.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is rather ironic to learn that the Canadian border has become a real sieve, as the Prime Minister is this very day meeting with presidents Bush and Fox and this matter will be at the heart of their discussions.

How will the Prime Minister be able to justify to his counterparts that the best decision to ensure a safe border is to cut manpower by closing down nine RCMP detachments?

Hon. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have already said this on a number of occasions in this House.

[English]

This is not a reduction of the capability of the RCMP in Quebec. In fact, there is no reduction in the head count whatsoever. To put it in context, 71 million people were processed by the Canada Border Services Agency at land border ports of entry last year.

Since 9/11 this government has invested $9 billion for the security and safety of Canadians. As I said earlier, in budget 2005 close to half a billion dollars has been invested in the Canada Border Services Agency.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, BQ): Mr. Speaker, not only have they closed down nine detachments, but the customs officers themselves are saying that they lack the resources to do their job and as a result thousands of cars cross the border illegally and unquestioned.

How will the Prime Minister justify to his counterparts the contribution these decisions have made to turning the border into a veritable sieve?

Hon. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a thorough examination of RCMP resources in Quebec has revealed a need to restructure and redeploy RCMP personnel in order to more effectively fulfill the RCMP's mandate as the federal law enforcement agency in that province. Resource allocation is an operational matter, and the commissioner needs to be able to deploy his available resources so as to fulfil the RCMP's mandate as effectively as possible.

---

My Comment on the above:

The government's attitude is -- nothing to see here folks, move along.

There is obviously a discrepancy between what senior police officers--RCMP and Canada Border Services Agency--are saying and what those on the front lines are experiencing, along with those citizens who live in the areas affected by border insecurity and by the closing of RCMP border detachments. It apparently is a situation, such as with the Sponsorship Slush Fund Scandal, where senior bureaucrats and politicians will deny there is a problem until the truth explodes all around them -- because to admit a problem means they would have to fix it. Unfortunately, border insecurity and Canadian citizens' safety is potentially a much more explosive--literally and figuratively--issue than dirty money sluiced to the Liberal Party of Canada by corrupt officials, whoever is finally blamed. Meanwhile, the government wants us to close our eyes to this pressing issue. We will not! On our behalf, our MP's have determination! They are doing a good job -- but how does one get past lies and corruption? Change the government, obviously -- my humble suggestion. NJC

---

Sponsorship Program

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadians are watching closely how this government is handling confessions of cronyism and corruption in the sponsorship program. They see the government now talking tough about going after ad agencies for improper billing. That is something that it allowed and encouraged, but the government becomes evasive when it comes to going after ill-gotten gains from its own Liberal Party.

Why is the government so eager to go after ad firms that did some of the dirty work instead of its own Liberal Party that got some of the dirty money?

(1445)

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again I will bring to the hon. member's attention today's National Post editorial, which says that in terms of any inappropriate funds, retrieving these funds from the Liberal Party “may not require a separate lawsuit, as the opposition called for this week, if the party willingly returns however much money it obtained inappropriately”.


[My emphasis. Re-read that. The government is outrageously arrogant -- and corrupt, in my opinion. They will bulldoze through in any way, in order not to "sully the name of the Liberal Party". It has already been sullied. What would really gain respect is if those who were not involved--are there any?--were to go after their own party organization for its corrupt activities. NJC ]


The fact is that the party has voluntarily said that it will return any funds that were inappropriately gained once we have all the facts and Justice Gomery has presented his report.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Justice Gomery now has a growing list of confessions about money kicked back to the Liberal Party. Just days before the 2000 election, thousands flowed to the Liberal Party from one agency alone. The political minister for Quebec over there pledged that the Liberal Party would never campaign with tainted money, but that is exactly what it did.

Now, facing public outrage, the government's weak response is that the party will pay the money back if Gomery tells it to. Why would Canadians trust an IOU from a morally bankrupt Liberal Party?

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would also draw her attention to the National Post editorial today which stated:

It is to [the Prime Minister's] credit not only that he called the sponsorship inquiry, but that he has stuck with it....We trust that, once its work is finished, he will show the same integrity in acting upon its findings

That is a promise made. That will be a promise kept by a Prime Minister who keeps his promises to Canadians. [The Senatorial appointments -- doing politics as the Liberals usually do -- NOT a promise kept. Surely, Scott must be embarrassed at having to defend his chosen party? NJC ]

[Translation]

Mr. Peter Van Loan (York—Simcoe, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in its handling of the sponsorship racket, the Liberal government is applying a double standard: it rushes to lay criminal charges to retrieve the sponsorship money, but, curiously, exonerates the Liberal Party.

Has it got a licence to print money? Is the Minister of Transport going to tell us that the Liberal Party is vaccinated against prosecution or will he simply agree to clean out the Liberal stables?

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we do not need to prosecute the Liberal Party because the party has been clear. If, in fact, it has received funds from agencies or individuals who are found guilty, it will voluntarily reimburse the taxpayers.

[English]

I assume that perhaps the hon. members opposite have been cut off from the National Post. Perhaps the National Post has cut off their subscriptions for lack of payment, because usually they read the National Post and they quote from the National Post editorials. Today we have a National Post editorial that gives the Prime Minister fair credit for his courage in appointing Justice Gomery and supporting Justice Gomery's work.

Mr. Peter Van Loan (York—Simcoe, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the new Liberal slogan should be money taken, money kept.

This government has double standards in the sponsorship scandal. Government members say to let Justice Gomery do his work and then they turn around and launch lawsuits. They launch lawsuits to recover stolen money, but not against the Liberal Party, which apparently has been granted some kind of special immunity despite receiving illegal contributions. This government is serving only its own interests by shielding the Liberal Party from lawsuits.

Can the minister tell us who, other than the Liberal Party, qualifies for special immunity from sponsorship lawsuits? Why does it continue to put its own interests ahead of the interests of Canadian taxpayers?

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I guess it has been a while since the hon. member, who once was a lawyer, actually practised law, but the fact is that while the party has pursued civil action against these firms and individuals to retrieve funds on behalf of the Canadian taxpayer, there is no verdict. As such, it would be inappropriate for the party to act without having some sort of verdict, or at least the result of Justice Gomery's work, to give us the facts so that we can act on the facts.

The hon. member is citing allegations. No responsible government acts based on allegations. We act based on the facts.

* * *

---

Terrorism

Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC): Mr. Speaker, according to Unicef and other international groups, the Tamil Tigers forcibly recruit children and train them to become suicide bombers. Unicef has recorded over 3,500 cases like this.

In Canada the Tamil Tigers raise funds. Our allies, many other governments, have made it a matter of their foreign policy to ban the Tamil Tigers. The recruitment of children has continued even after the tsunami. Why will our government not ban this group?

Hon. Dan McTeague (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the LTTE has been listed in Canada pursuant, as the hon. member knows, to Canada's United Nations suppression of terrorism regulations since 2001.

I want to point out to the hon. member that this listing makes it an offence for persons in Canada or Canadians outside of Canada to provide funds to the Tamil Tigers, as well as fundraising on its behalf. The hon. member clearly knows this. We will continue on that assumption because it is the right thing to do.

Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC): Mr. Speaker, that is a separate list and the member well knows that. That is not the list we are talking about in terms of banning the Tamil Tigers.

I will refer to comments made by a former director of Canada's intelligence service. He said that our government's policy of not banning the Tamil Tigers, and they are not banned under the classification that the member just mentioned, even puts the good people of the Tamil community in Canada here at risk. The Tamil Tigers as a group are not banned in Canada.

What does a terrorist group have to do that is more horrific than train children to become suicide bombers in order to be banned in this country?

Hon. Dan McTeague (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to state the question is to answer it.

The hon. member knows full well that the government is concerned about terrorism. It is one of the reasons we have spent a considerable amount of money toward ensuring that we have safe and secure borders.

The hon. member also understands that there are, in essence, certain considerations that he is taking into account, including the concern we all have to ensure that the people of Tamil origin in this country are not treated as if they are all terrorists.

The hon. member has the same objective that we do, which is to ensure that we keep a safe country and to work hard to ensure that in Canada we keep security as the number one issue.