Debates of Sept. 21st, 2001

Customs Act

[John Duncan, Canadian Alliance, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will begin by saying that I consider the comments with references to goose stepping made by the member for Winnipeg Centre are a stain on the House. They should have been withdrawn and I regret that the member chose not to do so.

Bill S-23 is an act to amend the Customs Act and other related acts. The fact that we are even talking about the bill today is symptomatic of everything that is wrong with our government's priorities given the tragic events of September 11.

As I said last night, the government is behaving as if there is no crisis, no urgency and no need for critical action. There is every appearance that the government's posture is to defend the status quo on every front.

The events of September 11 have been taken seriously by other countries, but our government's priorities are clear. Given what we witnessed last night with the speech from George Bush and given the absence of our Prime Minister, I can only say that the message we as a country are continuing to send out is doing a great disservice to Canadians, to Canada's national interests and to the international community.

The bill is essentially unchanged from earlier bills that have been kicked around. It is based on the 1995 Canada-U.S. shared border accord. What we are doing with this legislation is unilateral action. We are being boy scouts. This will speed passage. It focuses on frequent users and it is a one way item for people going from the U.S. to Canada.

The timing is all wrong. It is wrong to approach this unilaterally. For example, yesterday I met with representatives from the Canadian Trucking Association. It clearly sees this bill in the very same way. We heard comments from the U.S. ambassador to Canada and from Colin Powell, the U.S. secretary of state. Canadians and Canadian industry in general know intrinsically that the real issue here is not what is represented by Bill S-23. The real issue here is anti-terrorism.

Earlier this week the government defeated an Alliance motion which was very simple and straightforward. I will repeat it for the benefit of Canadians because I think it is important that they understand what we were trying to accomplish and how reasonable it is given our current critical circumstances.

We called upon the government to introduce anti-terrorism legislation “similar in principle to the United Kingdom's Terrorism Act, 2000”. Let me add that there is also anti-terrorism legislation in the United States.

The legislation we are asking for would: name all known international terrorist organizations operating in Canada; call for a complete ban on fundraising activities in support of terrorism; and provide provisions for the seizure of assets belonging to terrorists or terrorist organizations. It would also call for the immediate ratification of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. Canada signed that convention years ago but it has never been ratified because the government has not brought it before the House.

The legislation would call also for the creation of specific crimes for engaging in terrorist training activities in Canada or inciting from Canada terrorist acts abroad. It calls for the prompt extradition of foreign nationals charged with acts of terrorism, even if the charges are capital offences, and the detention and deportation to their country of origin of any people illegally in Canada or failed refugee claimants who have been linked to terrorist organizations.

I doubt if we could find 10% of Canadians who would disagree with the contents of that motion, but the government closed ranks and defeated it. More troubling than that are the games that have been played since that time on another front in this place.

The Canadian Alliance asked for a list of officials to be summoned before committees. For example, for the justice committee, the solicitor general, the director of CSIS and the commissioner of the RCMP were asked to appear. For the foreign affairs committee the Minister of Foreign Affairs was asked to appear. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration was asked to appear at the citizenship and immigration committee. For the transport committee we asked for the minister and the president of Air Canada. We asked that the Minister of National Defence, the chief of defence staff and the chief of the Communications Security Establishment appear at the defence committee. For the revenue and customs committee we asked for the Minister of National Revenue and the head of Canada Customs and Revenue Agency to appear as witnesses.

That is a fairly comprehensive list of witnesses we asked to have come before committees. This would be considered perfectly reasonable, rational and responsible in most parliamentary and western democracies. Anything less would be considered or construed to be a dereliction.

What has happened since that time? At two of those committee meetings Liberals pulled out of the meetings one at a time until quorum could no longer be reached, to disallow the proceeding of those motions to have those people come before committee. The government is trying to deny this occurred but it did occur and it is simply unacceptable behaviour, particularly at a time when we should not be playing games. If there is one time when we want to empower our parliamentarians, it is at a time like this. Instead, the government is doing the complete opposite.This is such a stark contrast to what is happening in the U.S. congress, for example, where there is a coming together and a national will, not only in congress, which is showing leadership, but in the population as well.

If we held a mirror up to Canada, we would see that the direction the government has taken on this issue is reflected in divisions appearing in our population at large even though 81% of Canadians, according to very recent polling this week, are very supportive of complete support for the U.S. in terms of military engagement and other activities.

It is clear that the Canadian public is far and away much further ahead than the government on this whole issue. The Canadian public has been done a great disservice by the government's actions to date. We are at the end of week one of a parliamentary session following the tragedy of September 11 and we have yet to see clear direction from the government. We have yet to see our Prime Minister even set foot in Washington or New York.

I would like to quote U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell. I am not the first one to quote him in this place. As a matter of fact, I quoted him last night when we stayed in this place until midnight. Colin Powell said: “Some nations need to be more vigilant against terrorism at their borders if they want their relationship with the U.S. to remain the same. We are going to make it clear to them that this will be a standard against which they are measured with respect to their relationship with the United States”.

There are ties that bind us with the United States: family ties, business ties, historical ties, the fact that we have aided each other in times of war and in times of adversity. Given all of that, friendship has to be earned. I can certainly call America our best friend because it has earned and deserves that title. Right now Americans are questioning whether we deserve that title. It will be based on performance, not rhetoric and empty promises.

What is essential now is not what is in Bill S-23. I do not know what it signals other than the government has no important priority to achieving anything real in terms of what is required in order to address the current crisis that we are all in together in terms of anti-terrorism.

If we want to talk about a perimeter security strategy, some unilateral boy scout border crossing ideas are out of place in the current context in terms of timing and are not currently supported by Canadian industry because the timing is wrong. Canadian industry and everyone is calling for us to toughen up our perimeter security through an effective strategy. We have to work with our American colleagues on achieving that.

We must take a step back, look where we are headed on passage of people and goods between Canada and the U.S., and make some very essential changes.

There is no question that since NAFTA has come into effect, trade and passage of people has increased tremendously between the two countries. It has had a positive influence. I think the government has actually taken a lot of the beneficial effects for granted. As soon as we do that, we forget that there are responsibilities that go with all of that.

We have a huge industry that is potentially affected by the lack of a perimeter security strategy and that could lead to problems with delays at our border crossings. The government is not saying that we do not have U.S. government buy-in on the direction of the bill. It is not prepared to go there. It has not been prepared to go there even before September 11. Unless we are in lockstep with the U.S. on this, then it is the wrong thing to do. It is the wrong thing to do at this time anyway.

There is a dichotomy here. The primary function of customs border crossing officials under U.S. jurisdiction is enforcement. The primary function and the reporting mechanism for our officials is collection of revenue through duties and taxes. We have simply got it all wrong. Many, if not most, of our border crossing customs officials agree that they are in the wrong department. They should not be reporting to Canada Customs and Revenue Agency. They are finding more and more that their job is dealing with criminal code infractions, not taxes and tariffs. NAFTA did dispose of many of those. That is not to say that we still do not have some tariffs and taxes to collect, but that is no longer the primary function. If we have an anti-terrorism stance, that is obviously one area where we could change everything.

The U.S. has its well recorded continuing concerns about security risks emanating from Canadian jurisdiction. It is the opinion of many people who are looking at this whole border crossing issue from an academic perspective and it was clear even before the events of September 11 that there would have to be some major changes. We thought we had maybe a three or five year window to make those changes. I always got the feeling that the government thought maybe we had a five or a ten year window. The events of September 11 have telescoped that time. We no longer have the ability to look at the border crossing issue and perimeter security in that kind of time frame. We need a sense of urgency. It virtually has to be one of our prime considerations right now. It is a prime role of parliament and the government to do this. Instead there is silence from the government and it is business as usual. The bill makes no sense given the current context and the government is pretending it is business as usual.

We clearly need to ensure that it is as hard or harder for a terrorist to get into Canada than it is to go directly to the United States. Nothing less is acceptable. This will be good for the security and safety of Canadians and the security and safety of our neighbours. It will be positive for international trade and it will be positive in every other fashion as well. That is where we must go. We must do it with urgency.

[Joe Jordan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's argument seems to be rooted in the notion that the American authorities have criticized the security at Canadian borders. I have listened to this debate all morning. This is the fourth reference made to criticisms by Colin Powell. Sometimes I get nervous that if something gets repeated often enough, it becomes fact.

I am fully aware of an interview that the American secretary of state gave to ABC News in which he spoke the almost identical words that the member referred to. For anyone who reads the transcript or heard that interview, there is absolutely no misunderstanding that he was referring to Afghanistan and Pakistan. That interview transcript appeared in an article in the Toronto Star , subsequently followed by a columnist's paraphrasing of it.

The member has stated that Colin Powell, the secretary of state of the United States, is critical of and has concerns with Canadian border security. Is he prepared to table a document in the House, and I am not talking about a columnist's paraphrase of an interview, which demonstrates that the secretary of state for the United States has made a direct criticism of Canadian border security?

The member has made a very serious accusation here. I think that this is an important time to clear this up. I therefore ask that if he has such a document to table it. If he does not, then stand and admit that he does not. Let us deal in fact not myth because I believe that is one of the problems we are faced with when we are dealing with this crisis.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Joe Jordan, Liberal, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

He said it and he does not have one.

[Philip Mayfield, Canadian Alliance, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Turn on your fax machine.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Order please. Are we going to debate each other? Members have to address the Chair and I will name a member.

The hon. member for Vancouver Island North.

[John Duncan, Canadian Alliance, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Madam Speaker, I see that I have hit a nerve on the government side.

I think if they were to review Hansard , I said that the United States has concerns regarding security risks emanating from Canada. In aid of that I did cite a quote by Colin Powell which was reported in the news media, but I could have chosen other quotes from other American authorities, including the U.S. ambassador to Canada.

I am not sure what the member's point is. If he is trying to suggest that Canada is not perceived to be a security risk in the United States, then I would say that he is sorely misinformed. The whole issue of perimeter security strategy is what I would like to focus on, not some red herring that the government member wants to throw out to try to obfuscate the primary issue. The government should focus on what is at risk, what is urgent and what is critical, not on some other aspect to obfuscate, to support its tendency, which is to completely hold the status quo because that is where it is most comfortable.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Canadian Alliance, Prince Albert, SK]

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.

[John Duncan, Canadian Alliance, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is asking about the world of economic reality. It is important to recognize that industry recognizes exactly what was said and that is that the current cross-border uncertainties for investors and others relates to going from north to south and not from south to north.

The implications of the bill, should it be implemented, would exacerbate that. It would make the flow from south to north even more readily available and that would work against Canadian manufacturing interests. We want to see a legitimate free flow of goods in an expedited fashion, but we cannot be boy scouts in this regard. We cannot do it without political buy-in from both sides of the border, and we do not have it.

[Grant McNally, Canadian Alliance, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Madam Speaker, many Canadians are disappointed that the Prime Minister has not yet set foot in the U.S. We know he is going on Monday. They wonder why he has not travelled to ground zero when so many world leaders have crossed oceans to go to the United States. Would the member like to comment on that?

[John Duncan, Canadian Alliance, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister and the government have sent the worst possible message to the U.S. by the demonstrable non-actions of the Prime Minister. A trip to the U.S., specifically to Washington and New York, would be a crucial element.

Many other world leaders have preceded our Prime Minister to Washington and some to New York. We are the closest neighbour and a traditional ally. The logistics for getting from our capital to their capital are much simpler for the Canadian Prime Minister than for the prime minister or president of any of the nations that we are making comparisons with right now. This is what makes it all the more passing strange.

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, before I begin my remarks on Bill S-23 I want to comment on the speech that was made by the NDP member from Winnipeg. He was asked to clarify his comments regarding Canada's agreement to participate with the American retaliation against terrorism. He referred to it as goose stepping with the United States, a clear reference to Nazism.

The member for Dewdney--Alouette and the member for Vancouver Island North are right that the Prime Minister has not responded with the due leadership Canadians want. However the Prime Minister is on his way to the United States. While he is not meeting with the president of the United States the Chamber needs to support the Prime Minister when he states that Canada will support the United States in its response to the recent terrorist acts.

It is absolutely and thoroughly irresponsible for any member of this Chamber to think it is Nazi-like behaviour. That is utterly irresponsible on the part of the member from the NDP and I would urge him to consider withdrawing that remark. Canada needs to stand united against terrorism.

We do not take pot shots at the United States by saying that we are endeavouring to rid the world of terrorism and those who would destroy the very pluralism the NDP says it was founded to protect. The hon. member dares to say that the behaviour of standing united with the forces of freedom and democracy is Nazi-like. That is intolerable and his constituents will be ashamed of those comments. It is astonishing how we can be distracted by some insufferable comments that drag the country down.

Bill S-23 is an act to amend the Customs Act and to make related amendments to other acts. I am in favour of what is contained in Bill S-23. However it does not effectively achieve its stated goal of modernizing and simplifying border operations and providing a new vision for border management and trade administration.

Members on the other side of the House might be surprised by those comments. If they read the same overview I did, they are probably wondering how one could possibly say that it does not achieve its stated goal.

Could it be that I am not in favour of simplifying border procedures or that I am opposed to reducing bureaucracy? Could it be that I am ignorant of the fact that many of the proposed changes of Canpass, EPPS, Nexus and customs self-assessment have already been successfully tested in pilot projects? Was I unaware of the fact that Canada Customs and Revenue Agency is planning to phase in the implementation of these initiatives at the end of October and that the private sector is largely in favour of them? The answer to all three questions is a very strong no.

If these were ordinary times I would be more strongly in support of this initiative but after the events of Tuesday, September 11, we are not living in ordinary times. If all the initiatives in the bill were implemented flawlessly the result would be to dramatically improve customs and immigration procedures at Canadian points of entry. Specifically it would facilitate the entry into Canada of preapproved travellers and it would reduce border waiting times for Canada bound trucks.

Bill S-23 would make it much simpler for Canadians to import goods from the United States and for Americans to visit Canada. These are both positive developments. However, unless Bill S-23 is mirrored by reciprocal legislation in the United States, the end result will be to make it easier to import U.S. goods into Canada than to import Canadian goods into the United States.

In a country whose standard of living is largely dependent on a $90 billion plus trade surplus with the United States any policy that would promote imports while discouraging exports should not be supported.

If it is easier to be based in the United States and export to Canada than it is to be based in Canada and export to the United States, businesses will choose to locate in the United States. The United States offers manufacturers lower taxes than we do and the stability of a huge 300 million person domestic market with a per capital GDP of over $31,000. We are now granting them easier access into Canada through Bill S-23.

Bill S-23, unless it is mirrored by similar legislation in the United States, gives manufacturers one more reason to pick a U.S. location over a Canadian one with tariff free, hassle free access to the markets of the other country.

If Bill S-23 were mirrored by U.S. legislation the result would be terrific for Canadian businesses. The Canada-U.S. border would be more similar to the national borders within the European Union and would give Canadians further proof that NAFTA does indeed work.

It would allow just in time manufacturing operations to span both sides of the border. This is important because just in time manufacturing is a growing part of our economy, particularly in the auto sector.

For example, the GM plant in Oshawa buys its car seats from Lear Corporation's seating plant in nearby Whitby. The Lear plant is located beside a foam manufacturing plant. When GM decides to make a blue sedan, the order for the seats is sent, usually in block orders, to Lear which then sends the orders for foam. The foam company makes the seats and ships them to GM. There is a loading dock at the GM plant right at the point of assembly where they are installed. Within an hour of the time at which GM orders the seats they are being unloaded right onto the assembly line and installed into the cars. There is no warehousing and no inventory. This is manufacturing perfection.

In this example the entire operation is based in Ontario. Bill S-23 would allow a Windsor auto plant to enter into a similar arrangement with an American supplier by drastically simplifying the importation into Canada of products shipped by reliable carriers and being imported by reliable persons.

Bill S-23 would allow an American manufacturer to enter into a just in time contract with a Canadian buyer. Unless Bill S-23 is mirrored by comparable U.S. legislation, a Canadian manufacturer would not be in a position to enter into a just in time contract with a U.S. buyer no matter how efficient the Canadian manufacturer is.

This is just one example of how Bill S-23 could potentially make the playing field uneven. Recent border shutdowns which caused a parts shortage at 10 vehicle assembly plants in southern Ontario showed how crucial free access across the Canada-U.S. border has become to the automotive sector and to our economy as a whole.

The National Post of Wednesday reported that the shutdown prompted Honda Motor Company president Hiroyuki Yoshino to suggest that Honda may build more plants in the U.S. to avoid similar future delays in the movement of parts. Honda employs 2,200 at its plant in Alliston, Ontario. We need to have policies to encourage it to expand, not retract. While Bill S-23 may make it easier for Honda to import seats from Michigan it does not make it easier for it to sell transmissions or subassemblies to the United States Honda operations in Ohio.

Unless Bill S-23 is mirrored by U.S. legislation, the message that other companies will get is to locate in the United States because they will have no trouble getting parts from U.S. suppliers and exporting their products to Canada will be a snap. Already past border simplifications have made it easier to import U.S. goods into Canada than Canadian goods into the United States.

If we surf the web we will likely find that many of the more sophisticated U.S. web merchants have GST registration numbers. They can promise overnight delivery to Canada because as long as the GST is paid and the product originates in the United States, Canada customs formalities have been simplified greatly. It is not quite as simple for people shipping to the U.S.

With the passage of Bill S-23 we would be one more step down the road to making Canada's border with the United States even more open, accessible, efficient and business friendly. We are building an autobahn into Canada but unless we encourage the United States to reciprocate by building an autobahn into the United States from Canada we will have an uneven playing field, a situation in which Canada's balance of trade with the United States would gradually decline, and with it our standard of living would also decline.

Frankly I am not confident that the United States will be building this trade autobahn any time soon. The home page of the U.S. customs service has a banner that reads “America's front line”. They do not consider it, as Canada does, a Canada Customs and Revenue Agency. They consider their border people a front line. That sounds more like a fence than an autobahn to me. After the events of September 11, I certainly cannot blame them for wanting to defend that front line. Their buildings and institutions were attacked and destroyed and their citizens murdered.

We can tell ourselves that we feel their pain and many Canadians, including me, do feel a sense of loss and outrage at what happened. However there are two basic realities. First, none of our buildings collapsed and no Canadian institution was attacked. Indeed we may take solace from the fact that most international terrorists probably could not find NDHQ, our equivalent of the Pentagon, on a map of downtown Ottawa. Second, there are reasons to suspect the possibility of a Canadian link with some of the terrorists or their supporters who caused such devastation in New York and Washington.

America was attacked and Americans want a fortress to defend itself against further attacks. The words America front line reassure Americans much more than open border with Canada.

If anyone has any doubt about that, just ask 10 Americans whether they would want an open border with Canada right now or if they would rather have a front line, as advertised on the American customs website.

Right now Americans have a sense of fear and that is the mentality which we are dealing with. In other words, while Bill S-23 opens trade from Canada to the United States, it does not do it reciprocally because mirror legislation has not been developed in the United States, and a heightened sense of security in the United States will not make it likely that such legislation will see the light of day any time soon, at least not to the extent that we would like it.

This basic reality gives us one very simple choice. We could either be within America's frontline or outside of it. If we are outside of it, I would not expect to see the U.S. congress pass mirror legislation such as Bill S-23 during my lifetime frankly.

If we are inside the front line, it makes so much sense for America to facilitate reciprocal trade with Canada, let their assembly plants be fed by competing suppliers on both sides of the border and hope that Wall Street and Washington will be working hard to create a U.S. equivalent to Bill S-23. We all know that the more efficiently the border operates, the more our collective economies will prosper. We must understand that if we see borders as ways to collect revenue, the Americans see borders as a line of defence, a crucial element in the defence of their republic.

In short, the official opposition does have amendments to this legislation. We hope that they will pass. We also hope that the government sends a clear message to the United States that Canada hopes it will announce similar legislation to Bill S-23 so we can expand free trade in a broader context much beyond what we have and do it on a level playing field. I fear that by enacting this legislation without the appropriate amendments and guidelines, the government is sending Canada down the road to an uneven playing field with trade in the United States. We want to make sure that does not happen.

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I listened very attentively to my colleague from the Canadian Alliance speak. He brought forward quite a number of very relative points.

Being a fellow member from British Columbia, I know he is very aware of the situation with the softwood lumber agreement. He hears, as I am sure all British Columbia MPs do, the concerns expressed by our constituents who really question NAFTA and the whole commitment by the Americans to free trade right now, given the ongoing dispute over softwood lumber.

Given the context of his remarks that without reciprocal legislation on the part of the Americans the bill once enacted will have the potential to increase the brain drain or expansion of companies in the United States in competition to Canadian companies, how is he going to communicate this problem to British Columbians in particular, given the problems we see developing with NAFTA?

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, as I said, the communication strategy for this particular piece of legislation would be difficult without it being properly amended. The hon. member for Prince George is right. As a former Prince Georgian, I know that there is a heightened sense of insecurity with regard to trade with the United States, particularly because of the forestry sector in north and central British Columbia.

How is this going to be communicated? It is going to be very difficult in the sense of how this legislation has unfolded and whether or not we do get a signal from the United States about whether we will see reciprocal legislation. That is why the bill needs to be amended. We need to make sure that we have those sorts of safeguards in place.

Last night on ABC, after President Bush's speech, J.D. Hayworth, who is a republican member of congress, I believe from Tucson, Arizona, and on the international trade committees in the United States, spoke. He happens to believe, unlike the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, that some of these attacks may have been based from Canada. These are the sorts of questions he will be asking in the United States congress, and we need to address them.

Mr. Hayworth made a very interesting remark, especially coming from a leading member of the republican side which is the majority in the U.S. house of representatives. He said that he believed in free trade. Just as it was important for our borders to facilitate free trade, and we must encourage that, we also have a constitutional requirement to ensure America's security. He said that in these times we could not ignore that first obligation.

The United States first responsibility and need in these heightened times, which is appropriate given the polls in the United States and the insecurity that people feel, is to have a heightened sense of security at borders, not a heightened sense of trade efficiency. In that sense I believe the finance minister, the international minister and the Prime Minister should go to British Columbia, when the time is right and appropriate given the current national security preoccupations, to ensure that those fears are met.

The Prime Minister, while he cannot to it legislatively, needs to send a strong diplomatic signal to the United States that reciprocal legislation will be expected. If it does not happen, then I believe that down the line we may have to look at rescinding Bill S-23, amending it and moving motions forward. This is another reason why in these times the appropriate committees of the House of Commons should be reconstituted as soon as possible.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, based on what took place on September 11, I want to say for the record that I was very impressed by the Minister of National Revenue in his response and the kind of work he did in light of those horrific events. Also, I know for a fact that he instructed his officials to see whether or not we could accelerate some of the implementation of the very initiatives we are talking about today.

The fact remains that we need to pass this in order to get those initiatives into play and start to move in the appropriate direction, given the circumstances at hand. It is very important that we proceed and proceed accordingly and, more to the point, proceed in a very quick way given all the events that have transpired.

His comments and the fearmongering naturally go with members of his party with respect to lost jobs, the so-called border issues and that Canada is somehow to blame for this. It is too bad those people opposite always show negativity.

Does the member not think it would be much better to have a co-operative non-partisan approach? In the United States we see Democrats and Republicans working very closely in light of the kind of concerns that have taken place. Instead of playing cheap politics, as the Canadian Alliance is doing in this very grave matter, does he not think it would be more appropriate to co-operate, roll up their sleeves and assist the government to ensure that what we do in this very important matter is done on behalf of all the people in Canada?

It is easy to score cheap political points. Members of the Canadian Alliance are always good at that, whether it be matters of immigration or the porous border. They are waiting for something they can hang their hats on with respect to somebody in Canada being part of the so-called bin Laden effort.

It is a sad state of affairs when they have to delve to these depths and go to this length to try to drag the country down, when in reality what they should be doing is assisting and making sure that we work in a co-operative effort.

Does the member opposite not think that it would be an appropriate gesture to work together in the best interests of Canada because it is in the best interests for us to support the Americans in this time of need? Does he not think, from a philosophical point of view, that would be the best way to go? It would be interesting to hear his response.

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, no rhetorical farce is ever fully complete without a rhetorical intervention from the member for Waterloo--Wellington. That having been said, it would be more helpful if the member was in the House to get the full gist of my comments. In fact I gave stern rebuke to the NDP member from Winnipeg for his comments about Canada goose stepping with the United States and engaging in neo-Nazism for daring to stand in line with the United States. So I agree fully with the comment from the member for Waterloo--Wellington.

We degrade debate in the House of Commons when we are asked not to be partisan and then in the same breath, without even finishing a sentence, make a partisan slam against the Canadian Alliance by daring to say that we are engaging in partisanship, and comparing our system of government to that of the United States.

As was mentioned the other day in question period, there is a reason why there is perhaps a heightened sense of partisanship and there is a good reason. It is because Canadians are damn angry right now.

Why did it take the Prime Minister of this country one week to reconvene his cabinet? Why did it take us six days to reconvene the House? Why have committees not been struck yet? Why has meaningful legislation not been put forward?

Why has the Minister of Transport not answered the question about whether or not a plane that flew out of Toronto's Pearson airport on September 11, with knives and box cutters on it and headed to Newark, New Jersey, the same place the terrorist attacks took place, was turned around? Why would he not answer the question about whether or not that was a security failure at the airport and whether or not there was a Canadian connection to these attacks?

Why has the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration not clearly answered the questions about the security at our borders in the long term, and the passport situation?

There is a reason why there is a heightened sense of partisanship. It is because his government is not answering clear questions in the House.

For the hon. member's information, there is a difference between the American system of government and the Canadian system of government. In the American system the chief executive of that country reached out to people with different political stripes and political values and asked how together they could put forward a front. It took six days for the House to reconvene before the Prime Minister even gave any other party in the House the time of day.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Canadian Alliance, Prince Albert, SK]

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.

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have just a short comment and then a question for my hon. colleague from the Canadian Alliance.

Earlier we heard from one of his colleagues in a presentation to the House in which he talked about the $90 billion plus net trade surplus that Canada enjoys with our neighbour to the south and how important that is. Certainly that is one of the reasons why I do support free trade and why I think most Canadians have seen the benefits of free trade.

However there are obviously some problems with NAFTA and with free trade with our American neighbours. Given some of the problems with Bill S-23, in that, as was stated earlier, without reciprocal legislation from the Americans to allow easier access to their market by our corporations and producers, we could see yet a greater impact on that trade surplus we enjoy today and which is of such tremendous benefit to our Canadian economy.

Problems have developed at our borders, with much justification I might add, given the tragic and terrible events of last week. Nevertheless, given the problems that we have seen over this past week at the borders, why would we move at this particular time to allow easier access to importing goods from the United States when U.S. intentions are obvious? There are some very real reasons why it is being forced to heighten its security at the borders, and of course that does damage to our exports.

I wonder if the hon. member would comment on why we would proceed at this time without a commitment from the Americans to bring forward comparable legislation in the United States.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Canadian Alliance, Prince Albert, SK]

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.

[Sophia Leung, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased that the member for Prince Albert recognized the importance of Canadian economics and trade.

May I point out that Bill S-23 not only expedites business and increased trade, it also tries to increase security at the border. We all know there is such a blockage now recently after the tragedy. We have to respond quickly to try to improve the situation without sacrificing our trade and business, and in the meantime provide protection for Canadians and Americans.

We all recognize how important Bill S-23 is. We need to put that in action as soon as we can. I wonder why the hon. member and his party cannot just simply say that this is a good bill and that they will try to support it.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Canadian Alliance, Prince Albert, SK]

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.

[Joe Jordan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Madam Speaker, I realize there are just a few minutes left but I would like to make some comments in reference to the speech we just heard. I listened intently to the member's speech. He made a lot of good points.

If the hon. member was concerned about a potential response by the government to Air Canada, I would suggest that he have a chat with his own transport critic. I was taken aback by the quick stand that was taken, and then a 180 was done a day later.

Clearly the market forces are probably one of the solutions we have to give serious attention to, or if we are going to compensate businesses for costs incurred through this crisis, we have to look at compensating all businesses. I do not think we can pick one over another.

I listened quite intently to the debate. There are a number of issues.

There has been talk about perimeter and harmonization. The bill deals with uses of various technologies--and this has been the subject of ridicule, given the events that happened--to speed up things like pre-clearance, things like going through one detailed security clearance process and getting either a visa or some sort of instrument that allows people to pass freely if they commute back and forth, things like that. These things have been discussed. I remember having discussions with Congressman Lamar Smith four years ago on these.

Clearly if they do not have confidence in the perimeter, they are not going to go ahead with these processes. That goes without saying.

On the issue of the common perimeter, let us not kid ourselves. Harmonization means Canada going to American rules. Then the member says that is not an issue, that there is no downside to that. We are two separate countries. Clearly this sovereignty versus security argument is a very false dichotomy. We do not need to put it in those terms because what I am hearing from various members is that there is a price for sovereignty. The member from Peace River mentioned $90 billion. The economic impact is $90 billion so sovereignty was pushed aside.

We have to give this some thought. We absolutely have to look at the perimeter argument. However I think the better way to approach it is to say what are our objectives are. We do not want undesirables in our country.

I would remind members that with respect to the crisis that we are dealing with now, 16 of the 19, and it is undecided on two others, did not slip through some porous bed and breakfast called Canada. They walked in the front door of the U.S. with legal visas and their actual ID. Perhaps all western countries were asleep at the switch on this issue, or the events as they unfolded redefined or shifted the paradigm a little on us. But to stand here and somehow claim that Canada was responsible, this was the most planned terrorist attack in the history of the worlds. If the preferred route was Canada, they would have used it. We have very little evidence of that. I am not saying that some of these people may not have spent some time in Canada, but they slipped by American authorities too. Therefore I do not think it is a time to be pointing fingers. I think it is a time to be directing our energies at solutions.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

It being 2.30 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday next, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2.30 p.m.)