Brian Fitzpatrick

[Supply, September 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I support the motion. However I believe that it is an academic discussion. Ex-military people like General Mackenzie have said that we are unable to provide any direct contribution in terms of a combat role should that happen. Another ex-military person said that all we can do is to put three frigates in with the American fleet. We do not have the capacity to get involved in a combat role. In that sense the debate is academic.

I wish we were debating the measures we need to take so that we will not be caught with our pants down the next time around. There have been many years of neglect, decline and drift by the government with respect to national security and our military, and we are paying the price for it today.

What are some of the things we can do in the interim besides what my colleague on the other side has mentioned? We should be starting tough anti-terrorism measures in Canada. We should see what is feasible and what can be implemented. We should also be seriously looking at, from an economic and social standpoint, what we can do with our perimeter to keep dangerous people out of North America and to limit this risk.

The government has the majority and it controls the agenda. Why could it not strike a committee that would actually look at anti-terrorism measures without a precondition that we have to get total unanimous consent from the House?

[Points of Order, September 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I took note of the frontline research that the member for Wild Rose did as far as our customs and border systems are concerned. Over the past 15 years anyone taking a masters of business administration at any good school of management would get into total quality management. It states that if quality is improved then results are improved. It involves having a system which is continuously improved to get better results.

The system is improved by eliminating fear among the frontline workers. Another way of getting continuous improvement is by getting meaningful input from frontline workers. One thing that should not be done under that theory is dictating or ordering results. Results have to be managed and a team has to be in place to achieve that.

I detected a great deal of fear among our frontline workers in the customs department. The fear goes so far that they feel they cannot speak to a member of parliament about the problems they are experiencing.

Any modern management system in the private sector would say that these are signs of a system that is not working. It is based on fear and commanding results, and it does not work.

If we want a quality system then we have to throw that out and find a different way of doing things. This does not have the signs of a quality system. Would the member for Wild Rose have any comments on that matter?

[Customs Act, September 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the comments about the use of computers and technology to minimize the risk at the border. I suppose that is a very good initiative by the government on that matter, but I wonder how that will deal with this problem.

If we take the situation of the millennium bomber, my understanding of the matter is that he was out of the country and managed to get himself a new passport. The passport changed his name from Ressam to Benni Norris. No matter what computer system was used, nothing showed up on a Benni Norris. It was blank. There was no criminal record and nothing in the background. If one had punched in Ressam, he or she would have found a lot of stuff.

I think just about everybody realizes that we have holes in our system right across the board. Our passport system is obviously a Mickey Mouse operation.

What can the government say about that particular situation? Will its computer systems be able to deal with phoney passport situations and so on or will it just let it go the way that it has been going?

[Customs Act, September 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, last week the president of Honda Motor Company made it quite clear that because of the bottlenecks on the highway for movement of goods from Canada to the U.S., they could not see themselves making any further or future investments in this country. Magma International, the big parts manufacturer in Ontario, exports a tremendous volume of parts to the United States auto industry south of the border.

There is a high speed, one lane highway system. It is a two lane highway but there is a high speed lane and a lane that is just about completely blocked. There is nothing moving through that lane. The high speed lane is the one the government is dealing with which is the flow of goods from the U.S. to Canada. The lane that is more important to Canadians is the other lane, the movement of our goods into the United States. The United States ambassador has made it very clear that he has a fair number of concerns about some of the things we have been doing in Canada in terms of security. The answers we are getting in the House refer to a moderate, balanced approach, the Canadian way of doing things.

There are other people in the U.S. who are very concerned about our internal policies. The auditor general referred to 40,000 residents of Canada who are not Canadians, people who are subjects of deportation orders but have not been deported.

Our country has security problems that the government has not addressed and it shows at our borders. There was the millennium bomber situation. I hope members watched the special on CBC last night. The French were trying to get search warrants here to deal with the terror cell in Montreal and it took six months before they were approved. The commentator just shook his head at our lax policy.

The question for my colleague on the other side of the House is, what are they going to do to open up the other lane?

[Customs Act, September 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have one comment and one question. During this debate there has been some implication that the United States of America is anti-immigrant and anti-refugee. Let us just examine that implication.

Some 400 years ago that country was settled. As far as I know the people who made that country grow and become a country that today has 5% of the world's population and 35% of the world's GDP were immigrants from all four corners of the world. There is no country in the world that is more multicultural, built on immigration and refugees, than the United States of America.

Again, I see a hint of anti-Americanism behind the reaction of some government members: that we cannot really work together with the Americans with a common immigration and refugee policy because somehow they are not in favour of immigration and refugee policies like we are. I just want to set the record straight on that matter. The U.S. has probably been more pro-immigrant and pro-refugee during its history than Canada has.

I have another concern. I would like to draw this question to the attention of my learned colleague for his comments. There has been a suggestion on the government side that in the face of this terrorist threat what the government will do is take a moderate, balanced approach in dealing with this threat with bin Laden and the international terrorist groups and the 40,000 people in Canada who have deportation orders and have not been deported. We will take a liberal, moderate, balanced middle of the road approach.

As a student of history, I have a lot of problems with that. If Roosevelt and Churchill in the face of Hitler had said that they would take a moderate, middle of the road approach in dealing with Adolf Hitler and nazis, where we would be? I do not think we are talking about domestic social programs here or some other type of program in regard to which they like to use this terminology and I would like my colleague to respond to whether he could envision the Government of Canada fighting terrorism with a moderate, balanced, middle of the road approach.

[Sir John A. Macdonald and the Sir Wilfrid Laurier Day Act, September 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, Prince Albert is somewhat relevant to the debate today as it has been home to three prime ministers: John Diefenbaker, Mackenzie King and Sir Wilfrid Laurier.

If I understand correctly, John Diefenbaker was inspired as a young boy to become prime minister upon meeting Sir Wilfrid Laurier on the streets of Saskatoon at which time the prime minister actually took the time to talk to him. In fact, if I am not wrong, Mr. Diefenbaker always considered Sir Wilfrid Laurier to be our best prime minister. I have often wondered why, if that was the case, he chose to pursue the Progressive Conservative path rather than the Liberal path but that is another story.

I have a great regard for Sir Wilfrid Laurier. He was truly one of the real builders and visionaries in this country's past. Being from Saskatchewan, when he became the prime minister of Canada, he was aware that Saskatchewan and Alberta were largely unsettled. He appointed Clifford Sifton as the minister of the interior and gave him a mandate to settle western Canada based on its economic needs and so on. There was a very active recruitment program in Europe, particularly in eastern Europe, to help bring people through the prairies with its cold, long winters to cultivate and farm the land. He was largely successful. It created a mosaic in western Canada of many different cultures of people from many different ethnic backgrounds. Saskatchewan and Alberta truly had a broad representation of many ethnic groups as opposed to what central Canada was at that time, which was largely remnants of the loyalist elements and our French heritage. It was the beginning of true multiculturalism in the west.

I also see Sir Wilfrid Laurier as a great visionary. Sir John A. Macdonald built Canada based on the national plan, which was really a nationalistic type of plan, and a very protectionist concept in many respects. Sir Wilfrid Laurier saw that Canada's future needed to be much larger than that. It needed to be very much tied to North America and our U.S. neighbours to the south. In 1911 he ran an election campaign on something called reciprocity with the United States. He lost that election in 1911. That was probably his most ambitious plan during his time.

Historically, we have seen some strange things. In 1988, some 80 or so years later, it was a Conservative government that abandoned Macdonald's national policy and moved toward Laurier's vision of Canada, a Canada closely integrated and tied to our American neighbours to the south. An interesting paradox is that it was the party across the way, the party of Laurier, that fiercely opposed the free trade agreement of 1988. I think it would be a fair comment to say that today it now agrees with Laurier's vision some 90 years after the fact.

I would reiterate that I see Sir Wilfrid Laurier as a great builder of the foundation and the make-up of the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta. I also see him as a great visionary leader.

I at times wish the party opposite could find that type of leadership again, a leader with great vision and commitment who would not be so concerned about just holding his finger up to see which way the wind was blowing. It needs to recommit itself to building and creating a real vision in the country.

[Customs Act, September 21st, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I will reiterate my point. The events that have taken place have been so extraordinary that the policy directives we might have had six months or a year ago will be dramatically changed.

I want to be very emphatic with the government. Ressam was headed for Los Angeles bent on doing the same sort of things that happened in New York. The American people apprehended him. Because of our politically correct refugee system, the man lived in our country for six years. The Algerians wanted him because they knew how dangerous he was. My understanding was that we could not send him back because the Algerians may have done something that we might have found offensive in dealing with terrorists. Canada let him go back to Afghanistan for two years while he was waiting here in limbo. We even allowed him to change his name. This is not an isolated case. The king of Jordan has pointed out seven or eight of Ressam's teammates.

I have a problem with the harmonization of our refugee and immigration system. It seems to me that the government has permitted one province to build a firewall and build its own immigration system within the country. I am not exactly sure how that will all fit into the equation if it becomes necessary but it is another sign of decay and decline on the part of the leadership of the government.

That is not the end of it. Interpol's most wanted criminal came back and forth to Canada about 17 times and nobody bothered him. We could not even ask his wife whether she had a husband because the minister of immigration found that offensive and sexist.

The Tamil tigers have something like 40 countries in which they could seek asylum but they like our country. We have that warm, cozy feeling here and once they are here they are pretty safe.

The Americans know these things. I would be really surprised if anyone on the government side did not know that American officials, whether it is the ambassador or whoever, are concerned about the security in our country. It will impact on our border. If they had confidence in our external border system it would eliminate a lot of problems on our internal border. It would be more like the European situation. For years people on the government side and I think my NDP friends have emphasized that we should be doing what Europe does.

Countries in Europe do have very tight perimeters. As much as business is being done inside countries, things move around pretty freely, including labour. Maybe we should be looking at enhancing these same things.

[Customs Act, September 21st, 2001]

Madam Speaker, that is a very good question.

There are many aspects to it. The events that have occurred recently are changing the way things are being done. We are in a state of war. Many people do not understand that. If they watched the president of the United States last night delivering his address, it was a wartime speech. We are not going to be immune from it. It is global. And the president said, “You are either with us or you are against us”.

That is my point of view. The timid response this week by the government in this whole area bothers me. The United States is going to change its policies. It is in a state of war. Business as usual is not going to carry on. Maybe the Americans had some sort of agreement where they would reciprocate on this issue, but until we get our house in order in terms of immigration and refugee policies, they will be difficult to deal with at the borders. It is as simple as that and I do not blame them.

There is something we have to understand. I do not know all the statistics on it, however, some 40% of our GDP or something in that region is based on trade with our American friends. This is very disturbing to me because if we lose a substantial portion of that, the government should realize what that equates to. It means unemployment, increased spending on social programs and real strains on employment programs.

I can see four or five ministers in the House right now and we could basically trim their departments right down to nothing in this situation in the interests of getting national, social and economic security in place and protecting it. However, the government is just doing things the same old way. It does not seem to think there is a war or a problem, but that it is someone else's problem. I know it is not someone else's problem. This is a world problem and we had better wake up.

I just thought of one example that would hit the nail on the head. We mentioned Honda and other ones. I was thinking of Magna International, one of the world's largest auto parts producers. I am quite sure many plants in Ontario produce parts that flow into the United States from this just in time inventory system. With the borders being clogged and jammed by American security interests, how long is that going to last? Assembly plants in the U.S. are not going to use our plants as suppliers if they cannot get the parts.

We have to bring this issue into perspective. It is more than just national security. It is social security and it is economic security. If we are not here trying to enhance all three of these things, I really wonder what we are doing in this place.

[Customs Act, September 21st, 2001]

Madam Speaker, in the last week we have heard a great deal about national security. I intend to direct my comments today to economic security and social security.

What is the intent or the purpose of Bill S-23? The purpose is to enhance economic security in Canada. Some time ago Canada entered a free trade agreement with our American friends. Since that time we have participated in an impressive economic expansion in North America.

In the 1980s we experienced double digit unemployment rates in Canada and in the U.S. Even Canada, with a slowdown, has a 7% rate. Our American friends are in the 4% category.

We have seen a dramatic increase in real disposable net income across the board and a dramatic increase in productivity, especially in the United States. I think it is a fair comment to say Canada has really dragged in those areas.

The economic expansion has permitted our federal government, in a fair comment, to deal with some fairly major fiscal imbalances. The economic growth has enhanced the revenues that are flowing into the government, which has allowed the government to timidly reduce the burden of taxation and to finance important government programs and some that are not so important.

The net result is that our economic security and our social security have been enhanced.

Modern economists understand that we cannot have social security with a second rate or third rate economy. Economic security, national security and social security are inseparable. They are joined at the hip.

Today our economic, social and national security are at peril. Why is this so? Our military is weak, the product of a decade of decline and neglect by the government. We have serious problems with terrorist groups in this country. Some people are in denial in regard to that, but the experts are not. This is a product of a decade of decline and neglect by our national government in terms of immigration and refugee policy. Loose, naive, and I will use this term, politically correct policies have made Canada a safe and comfortable haven for dangerous individuals.

The bill opens up one lane on a two lane highway. It frees up the movement of goods from this country to the U.S. What we do have is a serious problem in the other lane. It is getting clogged up and blocked up and there are serious questions as to whether that lane is ever going to open up given the situation we are in right now.

Our decade of decline and neglect on the part of government has had the effect of essentially closing down that other lane. In order to protect our economic security and our social security, we must free up that blocked lane.

Quite simply we should be looking very seriously at harmonizing our immigration and our refugee policies with those of our friends in the United States. I can see some immediate benefits from this. I know that government bureaucracies and a lot of politicians who want to protect their turf do not see the advantages but taxpayers do. We would have a much more efficient system. Our public servants in the United States and Canada could work together as a team in a co-operative manner, and if we did reduce the risk of dangerous people coming into North America we would both win. Nobody would lose. Our economic security would be improved, our social security would be improved and our national security would be improved. By taking this step we would improve security in a lot of respects.

The bill is designed to enhance trade between our two great nations. Through decisions made by this government, certain sectors do not participate in North American free trade. They are outside the parameters of that arrangement. Transportation, culture, banking and certain elements of agriculture are protected by the government.

I am a member of parliament from Saskatchewan. That province is almost totally dependent on foreign international markets and American markets. We do not have the luxury of protection.

I am very concerned about a projected bailout for Air Canada. In my view any step by the government to bail out Air Canada would be a confirmation that the government is perpetuating 19th century, family compact, upper and lower Canada policies.

As a western Canadian I am extremely proud that a strong air carrier has emerged in the west, a company called WestJet. It has continued to increase revenues and profits even with this downturn. It has raised its financing from private investors. It has not been in the pocket of HRDC. It has not been knocking on the door of the department of industry and commerce. It has won its customers from a giant, bloated, government protected monopoly by giving customers a superior product at more attractive prices.

I will illustrate that with one example. Three weeks ago I flew by Air Canada to Ottawa via Toronto on a hospitality charge seat of $1,044. With the crisis on I was discouraged from flying with Air Canada, so I tried the competitor, WestJet, direct from Saskatoon to Ottawa at a fare of $444, a net saving for the taxpayer of $600. I was surprised that in the rider service the government is engaged in we almost have to fight with those people to get a ticket with WestJet.

What is the solution? Air Canada is sinking under its own weight. It is a product of government protection. This is not a time for its pals in Ottawa to bail it out. It is a time for policy makers to back off and let the market sort it out.

Another solution is to bring transportation under the umbrella of the free trade agreement and let our companies fully participate in the North American economy, like we do in most other sectors. One minor benefit we might get out of that is that customers in this country might get the benefits of competition and some real choice.

There is a point I would like to emphasize. This family compact thing is well entrenched in this part of the world, but where I come from we are sick and tired of family compact arrangements.

In conclusion, I encourage our government to reverse this decade of decline and neglect in terms of investing in our military and our national security. I urge the government to seriously pursue a harmonization approach with our American friends and allies in terms of immigration and refugee policy. We are in a time of war and things have to change, but if we want to preserve our national, economic and social security we will have to change the way we do things. The old practices will not work.

Something that I really find offensive in this whole debate is the argument that a balanced, moderate way of dealing with terrorism will be used. I have heard that term a lot. I wonder if Churchill, Roosevelt and the allies said they would use a balanced, moderate approach to fighting Hitler. That is nonsense. We have an evil force here and this is not the time for some balanced, moderate approach. We are not talking about some social policy in Canada. We are talking about a very evil force that is out to destroy western civilization as we know it.

This is the time to take a stand with the president of the United States, decisively. I am really disappointed that our Prime Minister was not sitting in the house of representatives side by side with Mr. Blair last night. As a Canadian I found it embarrassing.

[Customs Act, September 21st, 2001]

Madam Speaker, in the early 1990s if I recall correctly, there were some serious imbalances in the province of Ontario. I think at one point one million people were on unemployment in this province and it had a double digit unemployment rate. Fortunately, through the free trade agreement and other things that started to take root, we probably had a much better political climate in this province somewhere in the mid-1990s. It was pro economic security and social security.

As a result of free trade and a different policy at the provincial level, companies such as Honda Motor Corporation, Toyota and other auto companies have made major commitments to the province of Ontario. However, the other day I was disturbed to hear the president of Honda Motor Corporation say that he was concerned because of the border problems that we have in this country. It is not the flow out of the U.S. into Canada that is the problem right now, it is the flow the other way. The Honda people are really questioning their commitment to this country and any future investments here. If they are thinking that way, I think a lot of other people are as well.

People are concerned about economic and social security, not just national security. This is a very big issue. I would ask my hon. colleague to respond to these kinds of problems which seem to be emerging.