Debates of March 12th, 2002

Point of Order

[John Manley, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Madam Speaker, the point I am trying to make is this: There has never been such concentration on issues of security in Canada, including resources for police, resources for customs and resources for immigration, particularly in the months following September 11. Both the $280 million expenditure package that was introduced for the current fiscal year and the many billions of dollars that were included in the budget on December 10 indicate the realization that things did change. Unfortunately they changed on September 11 and the case is that the realization is that the risks we face in the world are perhaps more immediate than would have been expected prior to September 11.

In trying to deal with the border, we have an 8,000 kilometre border with the United States and we take pride in the fact that it is the longest undefended border on earth. The reality in approaching the issues dealing with border management is that it is a matter of trying to do risk assessment. We cannot police 8,000 kilometres. Therefore, we have to determine where the risks are and we have to use customs officials in the appropriate manner. Again, in some ways the borders reflect the 19th century need of governments to raise all of their revenue out of customs, whereas today a very small proportion of our revenue is raised out of customs, the bulk both in Canada and the U.S. being from income and consumption taxes.

Therefore, what we are trying to do is not only reflect the new realities as a result of the security risks that September 11 made evident, but also deal with the risk management system in order to ensure that the economic flow across the border is not impeded by our need to ensure security and safety.

[Monte Solberg, Canadian Alliance, Medicine Hat, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his speech. First, it is sad that we had to have something like September 11 before the government really started to take the issue of security at all seriously.

Having said that as an aside, my question has to do with an issue that really does fundamentally affect our ability to keep the border with the United States open. It has to do with refugees who are ultimately denied refugee status in Canada. We have something like 27,000 refugees about whose whereabouts we are uncertain. I wonder if the minister can tell us what specific actions the government is taking to ensure that when refugees are denied refugee status in Canada we know that they actually leave the country.

[John Manley, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Madam Speaker, additional resources were provided to the department in order to facilitate detention and removal when refugee claimants are unsuccessful in their claims, but I also point out that if September 11 was a surprise to us, it did not occur on Canadian soil and it was a surprise to the United States as well. The perpetrators of that incident did not enter the United States from Canada. They entered legally into the United States. If there was a lack of awareness of the nature of the risks we faced, that lack of awareness was not unique to Canadian authorities. It was shared by authorities around the world and together we are all trying to make the world a more secure place.

[Jerry Pickard, Liberal, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to be able to use this House as a vehicle to explain what the Canadian government has done and what directions we have taken since September 11. No one really anticipated what happened on September 11, but what it did was highlight the concern of terrorism, highlight the concern of safety and highlight the concern of economic stability in Canada.

Quite frankly, in my area in southwestern Ontario I believe we were affected very dramatically by the events of September 11 and we had to respond in a way that was difficult. However, when I saw lines of traffic some 40 kilometres long leading to the bridge, when I saw we could not have our flow of goods back and forth, when I realized merchants had difficulty getting their products back and forth between Detroit and Windsor or areas in the United States and Canada, I certainly realized how important the border is to economic stability in Canada.

The questions that were raised on security and safety in Canada were certainly questions that needed to be raised, but I believe that questions which at some point suggested Canada was a haven for terrorism were very unfair, invalid questions. If we look at the real statistics of the border, I think it will answer some of those issues.

We have a border that is 8,800 kilometres long. Shared between Canada and the United States, it is the longest demilitarized border in the world. Over 200 million border crossings took place in 1999 between Canada and the United States. Two billion dollars a day in trade goes back and forth between Canada and the United States.

There were questions about Canadians and how secure we had made our border. Canada already had at that point deployed far more people at the border than the United States had. In fact, Canada had 350 citizenship and immigration inspectors and 2,400 customs inspectors, while the United States had 700 customs inspectors and 515 immigration inspectors. Canada had twice the number of people securing our border at that time that the United States did. Last year Canadian officials stopped 21,000 criminals from entering Canada from the United States, while the American agents stopped 14,000 criminals from entering the U.S. from Canada.

These numbers tell a pretty important story: that our borders were secure. Our borders were looked upon as relatively secure in comparison to all nations. However, as we all know, September 11 created a new problem that had to be intensively looked at, looked at in a more serious way, and a great deal more effort had to be made.

As the Deputy Prime Minister just pointed out, several groups in the House and in the Canadian government started to look very carefully at our immigration policies and our points of entry, at what we could do to secure the nation and what we could do to make sure goods and services flowed back and forth across the border in the most secure way, while still making sure that trade between Canada and the United States was not interfered with so that the intense economic loss of jobs would not be felt as strongly in Canada as it could have been.

Canadians have groups abroad that screen and check people when they get on airplanes coming into Canada. Last year alone, agents stopped 6,000 people with fraudulent, forged documents from coming to Canada. In the past five years, 33,000 people have been stopped from entering Canada.

Canada and the United States are both committed to travel between our countries being as open and as secure as possible. At the same time, we have to make sure that the economic stability of both countries is maintained.

We have introduced legislation to make sure that we are diligent in dealing with terrorists and terrorist activities. As a matter of fact, in last year's budget we included some $6.5 billion in security measures.

We talked about airport security and the security required in airports. We took several measures that were very important to all of us with regard to airport security: armed officers on aircraft flying in Canada and into Canada; better trained personnel to screen passengers and carry-on baggage; new state of the art explosive detection systems in Canada's airports; enhancing policing in airports; permanent modifications to secure aircraft cockpit doors; and enhancing the security zones at airports for better handling of passengers and facilities.

There is no question that when we look at the security in airports things have been very much increased. I believe that was because of September 11, but for someone to say that before September 11 many Canadians would have expected those issues to be necessary, again, I do not believe it is accurate.

Quite frankly, September 11 did change the ball game. I can remember going to meetings in Windsor and talking with those folks involved in the Ambassador Bridge, with people involved in Ford, General Motors and Chrysler Corporation, and with tool and die operators, people who were all very involved in having a free flow of goods, information and people back and forth across the border to make sure our economies continue.

One of the major problems that did come up when a businessman from Dearborn, Michigan had a meeting with business people in Windsor was that a delay of an hour, two hours or three hours at the border was unsatisfactory and would not allow that trade to go back and forth, would not allow those meetings to go on. Therefore, initially for the first month after September 11, we were very much hamstrung by our ability to have meetings and carry on different operations.

When I look at questions about business in Windsor, a lot of the business community in Windsor was very concerned, from the retail aspect to all the aspects of casinos and the auto industry. The businesses were being curtailed in their ability to compete on the same basis as they could before September 11. Their main plea was “open the borders so that we can have secure travel back and forth, put the resources in place that are required for safety, but make sure that we do not infringe upon the business movement in our community”. I believe the Canadian government did just that in its budget for security.

On top of that, many dollars were put into the military to make sure we could move those troops into Afghanistan that were required to help in the battle against terrorism. We did a fair amount for a nation of 30 million people. I believe Canada has a tremendous track record of providing military support. As the Prime Minister said earlier, there are some 3,000 troops in Afghanistan today. That is considerable for a nation our size.

Our dedicated work with the Americans is documented very well at every step along the way. The Deputy Prime Minister, with Governor Ridge, has carried on discussions from the beginning of October, moving forward. I believe that the primary target of the Canadian government has been to ensure that we have safe, secure borders and at the same time, regarding the economic concerns for Canadians trading with our American partner, which takes over half of our goods every year, make sure that lines of communication, security and trade are maintained, because the U.S. is our major partner.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a couple of comments in response to my colleague across the way.

First, there is nothing in the motion that specifically refers to September 11 although that has certainly framed a fair bit of our comment and understandably so. I believe the government is a little sensitive because in many ways it has been sleeping on many of these issues. Yes, it has embarked on some steps since September 11 but it was certainly woefully unprepared prior to September 11. Now we are in the act of trying to play catch up in many of these areas.

My colleague from Medicine Hat mentioned that there are about 27,000 failed refugee claimants in the country. We do not know where they are. That is a security issue. We know that terrorists have come through Canada before. The Ressam case is well documented.

We know that we have a long undefended border. We also know that because our neighbour to the south implemented a border patrol it catches many people crossing our borders all the time. The Americans intercept those smuggling guns, people and drugs across the undefended border. We have very limited resources in that particular area of border security. If it were not for the help provided on the south side of the border by our American friends, we would see more difficulties in that particular area.

I also want to point out that the government has cut spending to the military. The auditor general has said billions of dollars need to go back in just to get back to the point where it once was. It is the same government that cut the ports police prior to September 11. By attrition it has been responsible for many of the security issues we are now dealing with that have been highlighted by the September 11 incidents.

Would my colleague agree that prior to September 11 we were woefully unprepared and there is still lots of work to do in the area of national security for which the government is accountable?

[Jerry Pickard, Liberal, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, obviously there is a great deal to do.

There is no question that September 11 was a point of critical change. I do not believe that anyone anticipated what would happen on September 11 and that is very unfortunate.

The member mentioned that we do not know where some refugees are in the country. We do not have an exit policy. When refugees are sent from this country it is true we do not keep track of everyone who leaves, nor did the United States, nor do most countries in the free world. It is common among most nations of the free world. Canada was exactly the same as other nations in the free world.

The member made a point about criminals moving into the U.S. I believe he said the Americans capture people carrying drugs, and others. At our borders, 21,000 criminals who were attempting to come into Canada were stopped last year alone, while there were only 14,000 going from Canada to the United States.

That would say to me that we are stopping more criminals coming from the United States than the U.S. is from Canada.

A third fact relevant to the comments made is that 40% of the refugees coming to Canada come from the United States. Why? Because it is easier for people from many countries of the world to enter the United States than it is to enter Canada. They enter the United States and come to our borders for entry.

I believe a lot of the member's facts need to be researched a great deal more than they have been before being put forward in the House.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sorry to see that there does not appear to be a quorum in the House to continue such an interesting debate.

And the count having been taken:

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The House does not have quorum. Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Since we now have quorum, we shall resume debate.

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

Madam Speaker, the member for Chatham--Kent Essex mentioned that post-September 11, given the new airport security regime that has been put in place, the security guards at airports have been replaced. I have been paying very close attention to this file. The member said that a number of airport security guards and baggage screeners have been replaced at airports. That was in the member's speech. I want to ask him exactly how many have been replaced because I do not know of a single one.

[Jerry Pickard, Liberal, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I did not say that many security guards have been replaced. The fact that I made was there is much more equipment in airports and in the airports themselves we have a lot more security equipment that is coming in for the protection of passengers and travellers.

[Monte Solberg, Canadian Alliance, Medicine Hat, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Port Moody--Coquitlam--Port Coquitlam.

I have to say at the outset that I think my friend from Chatham--Kent Essex really did gild the lily a little bit today in his defence of the government over the last number of months as it tries to respond to what occurred on September 11. I mean that in a couple of senses.

First, I do not think anyone would question that the primary role of government should be to provide protection for citizens of the country and their property. That has to be the first role of any government. There is no question that the record of the Liberal government since it has been in power since 1993 is lamentable when it comes to protecting the lives and property of citizens.

I point to when there was a financial crunch, the first things that got cut were the things that were necessary to protect the lives of Canadian citizens, for example the funding for the RCMP. There was a 28% cut in funding for CSIS. Even now with the new money that has come back in there is less money than there was at the beginning of the Liberal government's reign. The Department of National Defence has become a story of almost mythical proportion. The government has savaged national defence and has failed to back it in many respects.

I simply have to say at the outset that the Liberal record when it comes to providing any kind of support for national security is terrible.

I remind members that a couple of years ago the Deputy Prime Minister was in charge of running a security task force that was to meet periodically to discuss security issues. It met once or twice and then due to lack of interest, it did not meet again. That is simply inexcusable.

My friend from Chatham--Kent Essex who just spoke a few minutes ago said September 11 was a wake up call for us. In a sense he is right but there were many wake up calls along the way that should have alerted the Canadian government to the fact that this is a dangerous world and that there are terrorists around the world who mean to do damage to countries like Canada.

In 1993 there was a bombing at the World Trade Center. Maybe that should have been a little hint that some of those people were out there operating. My friend from Dewdney--Alouette mentioned the Ressam case, a terrorist who came through Canada, lived in Montreal and then tried to enter the United States on a ferry from Victoria and was ultimately caught. He had plans to blow up LAX, Los Angeles airport. He had been living in Canada. Subsequently an associate revealed that there were plans to set off a bomb in Montreal in a section where a lot of Jewish people lived.

That should cause us some concern. I am simply arguing that it is improper, it is not correct to say that we did not have any warning signs before September 11 that this is a dangerous world. We had lots of warning signs.

I point to the fact that I and many others raised concerns in the House about government ministers attending fundraising dinners sponsored by a group that CSIS and the Canadian high commissioner in Sri Lanka said was a fundraising group for the Tamil Tigers terrorist organization. We raised it in the House. How did the government respond? It accused us first of all of being racist because of course that is the catch all now. If the government wants to dodge or cut off debate about serious issues, it just hurls out that racist accusation and hopes that everybody runs for cover instead of taking it seriously as it should because it is a serious issue.

CSIS warned the government over and over again well before September 11 that Canada was a home to a number of terrorist organizations. The former chief strategist for CSIS commented before a Senate committee saying that there were 50 terrorist organizations operating in Canada well before September 11.

I am afraid it simply does not wash to say that there were no indications before September 11 that this was a serious problem.

I have laid out some of the warning signs. I will argue that the government has still not done enough. I hope other members will flesh that out. I want to talk about where we go in the future.

This motion condemns the government for its failure to present a national security policy. It is absolutely true that the government has failed to do that. How do we protect our country properly in the future? I will answer that question in part by telling the House about my recent journey to Cheyenne Mountain in Colorado which is where we, along with the United States, run Norad, the North American aerospace defence command.

Since 1958 Canadians and Americans have worked together at Norad to jointly provide a defence of North American airspace. Believe it or not, on September 11 it was two Canadians who were in charge at Norad. One of them was Captain Mike Jellinek who was at the helm of the command centre when the first of those planes went into the World Trade Center. It was Captain Jellinek along with Major General Eric Findley who were in charge at Cheyenne Mountain on September 11 making the calls along with the Federal Aviation Administration in the United States to get planes and commercial jetliners out of the air to ensure that no more of them would fly into buildings. Those two Canadians were involved in helping scramble jets to make sure there were no more problems with more aircraft.

It is a wonderful model of how Canada and the United States can work together on so many other issues. Those issues range from security sharing right through to things like a joint integrated northern command to protect the entire North American continent not only from attack by air but from attack by sea and land as well. It is a fantastic model which is now 43 years old. There is no question that it works. We saw it when we were there. Every member who joined us, Liberal and NDP as well as a Conservative senator, agreed that it worked extraordinarily well. It should be a model for the future.

My former leader, Preston Manning, on his last day here, spoke about the fact that in the future we will need to think about forming strategic alliances in a lot of ways in order to solve the problems that we face. He is absolutely correct. It makes so much sense to work with our closest ally, our largest trading partner, the United States, to protect the North American continent.

I was happy to hear the Deputy Prime Minister suggest that harmonization of some laws was needed as well as some agreements on information sharing and that kind of thing. I fear that the government will not go far enough in ensuring that happens.

I need to remind members across the way who are concerned about sovereignty that the greatest threat to our sovereignty occurs when terrorists and dangerous criminals come into our country and threaten the lives of our citizens. That is the greatest threat to our sovereignty; it is not being overtaken by Americans. We already know we can work very well with the Americans through Norad and a dozen other security agreements which are already in place. We should be expanding it so we can take advantage of the vast resources the U.S. has to offer to protect our country. I will make one final point with respect to that.

In the very near future we will be discussing in Canada not only the idea of an integrated northern command to protect the North American continent, but we will also be talking about ballistic missile defence. When we were at Norad we saw the fantastic facilities it has to detect ballistic missile launches anywhere in the world. It tracks a couple of hundred a year. Canadians are very involved in this. As I pointed out, the fellow in charge of the command centre is a Canadian, a navy captain, Mike Jellinek.

If we agree to move forward with ballistic missile defence then Canada will undoubtedly sit at the table when decisions are being made about protecting the North American continent through the new ballistic missile defence shield. It is important to keep that in mind when we are discussing this issue. Canada will have a major say in how ballistic missile defence works and in how it will protect the North American continent if we say yes to BMD when the Americans ask us for co-operation.

I will close by simply urging Liberal colleagues across the way to remember that the first priority of any government is to protect its citizens and their property. I would argue the government has failed completely to do that in the past. Since September 11 it has awoken to the necessity to start doing that, but we urge it not to fall asleep again as time passes by.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague with great interest. He brought forth a bunker mentality which says that we need ballistic missiles. I am not sure where he was going, but I remember the Normandy invasion in the 1940s and the bunker mentality of the Germans. It was like everybody is coming to get us.

Does my colleague have a vision that Canada is a country which is at the brink of being invaded and that the folks across the way are pointing thousands of missiles at us?

It is one way of saying we want the protection of the Americans. We have to co-operate with the Americans but in Canada we have an autonomy. We have something that is uniquely Canadian: our great country has not been at war for the last 200 years.

Is my colleague proposing that the great plains of midwest Canada have the mentality of silos and minutemen ready to go up?

[Monte Solberg, Canadian Alliance, Medicine Hat, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am afraid my friend betrays his ignorance. Ballistic missile defence has nothing to do with putting ballistic missiles in Canada, or for that matter in the United States. It has to do with defending against ballistic missiles from aggressive countries outside the North American continent. A cursory reading of the newspapers would reveal that to him.

When he says that we have not been at war in 200 years, perhaps he forgets the Korean war, the Persian Gulf war, World War I and World War II. Perhaps a reading of a history book would equip him as well.

Canada already works closely with the United States to protect the North American continent through Norad against air attack from unfriendly countries. That was especially necessary during the cold war. There is no question that to a big degree, now that relations have warmed with the former Soviet Union, now Russia, we do not face as big a threat but we still face a threat.

There are still concerns, for instance, about mainland China and the capacity that it has to deliver ICBMs to the North American continent. We have to worry about North Korea which is now developing a missile that can come close to reaching the North American continent.

Many people at Norad are very concerned about cruise missiles which could be delivered from ships off the North American continent that could carry nuclear warheads.

The idea is not to have ballistic missiles launched from North America to knock them down. That is not what we are talking about. We are talking about a missile defence shield that would use conventional missiles which do not have warheads on them but would simply run into other missiles coming our way. It is a dangerous world out there. After September 11, I am surprised my friend does not recognize it.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to refer to the last comments of my colleague from Scarborough--Agincourt in concert with what was said by my colleague from Medicine Hat. If the Liberal mentality is that we wait for a disaster to happen to set up parameters to defend against the disaster, it is no wonder the government has been in such a rush to set up even basic security parameters post-September 11.

That exact mentality causes Canada to be weak and causes Canadians consternation about the future of the country and our capacity to defend ourselves. Because something has not happened in the arena of ballistic missiles does not mean that we should not then therefore defend against it. That sort of mentality is frankly frightening for most Canadians.

We are debating the Progressive Conservative motion that reads:

That this House condemn the government for its failure to implement a national security policy to address the broad range of security issues, including those at Canadian ports of entry and borders, and call on the government to reassert Parliament's relevance in addressing these and other public policy issues.

I agree wholeheartedly with the motion. I encourage all members of the House including all backbench Liberal members to agree with it. I know a number of Liberal members in the House are not happy with the way the government is being led certainly by the frontbenches on the issues of national security and so on.

One particular event happened in the House, but because I only have about nine or so minutes left I want to specifically circumscribe my comments to the issue of the $24 air tax, how it relates to airport security and what the government has done in that area.

The government said after September 11 that our security was not where it should be given the new realities of airport and airline security and what we need to be doing. It also said at the same time that our airport and airline security standards, however, were still higher than those of the United States.

The government then asked those of us on the transport committee to hear witness after witness, hour after hour, and spend tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars. It asked us to travel across North America to hear from witnesses and to look at different ways of improving Canada's airport and airline security. We did that. We went to Washington, D.C., and to Pearson airport. We took tours of airports all over the country, heard from countless witnesses and drafted 14 recommendations.

They included the idea that we had to increase airport security, that the new improvements in airport and airline security should be financed by a group of financiers including airports, airlines, general revenue and passengers, and that the cost of improved security should be dovetailed so that no one specific element of the transportation sector or one branch of Canadians would get nailed harder than another. The cost should be spread out.

Recommendation No. 14 of the transport committee was supported unanimously by every member of the committee including every Liberal present at the committee and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, the member for Chicoutimi--Le Fjord. We all said that this was how it should come forward.

What happened? Lo and behold we tabled our report and half a week later the government came down with its budget which said that it would impose a $24 air security tax specifically on passengers. To heck with what the transport committee said. To heck with what its own Liberals said. To heck with what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport said. It nailed consumers only, travellers themselves, with a $24 tax.

That was utter disrespect of the committee system. For that reason alone I would think that certainly members of that committee would support the motion we are discussing today.

There are many problems with the $24 tax, which is one of the reasons the government has been pilloried on radio talk shows, in the newspapers and everywhere else about it. No real Liberal is standing to say the $24 tax is a great idea and that we have to do it. There are many holes in this policy. I have raised this a number of times in the House in question period.

Among these problems is the fact that last year Canada's airlines paid $72 million in airport screening. They cut cheques to the government saying that they understood they benefited specifically more than other people in this regard. The government mandated that they spend $72 million for airport screening. As of the December budget the government has said it did not want the $72 million. It has the $24 tax. It has the taxpayers in its line of sight and is going after them. Why is the government not asking air carriers to pay the extra $72 million they used to pay and lowering the $24 tax a bit?

Another problem is that last year prior to September 11 per passenger screening was $1.10 per emplanement. It is now $12 or 10 times the amount. When average Canadians go to the airport I do not think they will see 10 times the number of security guards, 10 times the number of metal detectors or 10 times the number of baggage screeners. It is just will not happen. However the government is asking taxpayers to pay tenfold the amount they paid last year.

In the United States the government said that its security was here and that we were ahead of it. The United States implemented airport security to raise it up to the Canadian standard and maybe even exceed it. With the variation between Canadian standards and American standards and given that we were further ahead, Americans are charging $5 for a round trip or, adjusted for Canadian dollars, $8 for a round trip. What are we charging? It is $24. This is defeating the government's own logic.

The Liberal government says that our security is better than that of the Americans. We have a higher starting point but it will charge Canadians triple to improve it so that we meet American standards. How does that square? Average Canadian citizens think it is just a bunch of blarney. It is and they are right.

The $24 tax will finance $2.2 billion in aviation security needs. The government said that $2.2 billion was the number it would finance over five years. It picked a number out of the air. Thus $2.2 billion divided by the average number of passengers that flew over the last couple of years adds up to $24. That is what it put in the budget so that bang, it would become law.

It did no impact study whatsoever on what it would mean to regional carriers or to low cost carriers in small communities. It did not even listen to the transport committee. It did not consult a single air carrier. It just said that $2.2 billion over five years divided by the number of passengers was $24. That was the number.

It is nonsensical. Of the $2.2 billion in airport improvements over $1 billion is to buy EDS or electronic bomb detecting type equipment. That is fine. The official opposition supports purchasing the new and best equipment possible because Canadians should be safe when they are flying. However the problem is the government will pay upfront cash for all that equipment in year one.

There are two problems in that regard. The first problem is that the equipment will not be available for one to two years because there is a backlog of American airports that are already ordering this stuff. We are paying cash up front for a service, for technology that we will not see for another year.

The private sector, and this is where the Liberal government does not get it, has some lessons to teach the government. Once in a while it would be helpful if the government would listen.

Dentists and chiropractors are two examples. Dental chairs cost roughly $20,000 to $25,000. A chiropractic table costs about the same. When they buy those as small business people, which is what they are, they amortize the cost of the equipment over the life of the equipment. They say the equipment will last them roughly 12 to 15 years so they amortize the cost of it and keep their payments down.

The government is doing the opposite. This equipment, the EDS, the bomb detection equipment, should last 10, 15 or maybe up to 18 or 20 years and the government is paying cash up front in year one. What kind of nonsensical fiscal irresponsible financing is that and at what cost so that it can meet its target of $2.2 billion over five years without having done a single impact study?

Even worse is if we consider the numbers and how it arrived at the amount. The 43 million passengers that were screened last year do not include connecting passengers. The government has said that 43 million passengers flew last year. It divided the 43 million over five years at $12 per emplanement and reached the $4.5 million number for new improvements per year.

There are a number of problems in that regard. Among them is the fact that last year was the worst year on record for commercial aviation in terms of emplanements at 43 million people flying. In March of this year Air Canada and WestJet have both reported that their passenger numbers are back up to normal. In fact Air Canada just rehired a few hundred of its former employees. WestJet has just purchased two brand new 767s. They are back. Things are improving. Air traffic is coming back. The numbers will go up. The number of 43 million passengers was the real low ball number.

What has the government done? It has taken 43 million passengers and has dropped the number to 36 million. It is assuming that only 36 million passengers will fly next year, so 36 million times the $12 over five years equals $2.2 billion. What the government will not admit but should admit because it is so painfully obvious is that more than 36 million people will fly. More than 43 million people will fly, which was the number for last year. It could be in the neighbourhood of 50 million people. If we take 50 million people times $12, all that money and all those tax dollars will go straight to the finance minister and to the Liberal government.

What is even worse, that money is supposed to go toward creating a new air security independent authority that will not be set up until November or December this year. People will be paying for a service that they do not get and, of course, as is the Liberal way, all the money will not go to the authority. It will go straight into general revenue and the government will get to do what it wants with the massive surpluses. It is totally irresponsible. The motion speaks to it and I support it.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague across the way started by speaking about some comments I made previously. I wonder whether he really lives in the 21st century or whether he still uses a donkey to come to work. He wants to have security at the airports in 2010 the way business was done in the 1900s, which is like having a donkey to come to work.

He said that when a dentist buys new equipment it is amortized over the five or ten year period that the dentist's chairs might hold up. I go to a dentist and his chairs are probably about 15 years old. If he paid $1,000 about 15 years ago, over the last 15 years, that would be about $50 or $60 a year. The hon. member says that the equipment we will use at the airport will be good for the next 20 years so we should amortize it over 20 years. In the year 2020 my colleague across the way wants to have the equipment we have today. That is like telling me that I have to use the 286 computer in my office that I had when I was first elected to the House and not a Pentium 2. I was wondering how his staff would feel if they were still in the stone ages of computer programming and had to use a 286 computer. When we are talking about equipment--

[An hon. member]

They work for dinosaurs.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

My colleague from Mississauga said that they work for dinosaurs. This is exactly what my colleague across the way wants us to do in the year 2010 or 2020. He wants us to use dinosaurs. He wants us to have equipment at our airports that will be 20 years old.

He himself said today that the Americans are behind us. He went on to say that we are here, the Americans are there and now they want to catch up to us. Because we are here and the Americans are there, we have seen fairly well what happened on September 11. What happened on September 11 was not some terrorists coming from overseas that hit the twin towers. It was not planes coming from Canada that hit the twin towers. That happened internally. That country is supposed to have the most up to date security in the world. It happened internally.

Does my hon. colleague want to be up to date or does he want to use a donkey to come to work? What he is alluding to is certainly not simply the use of a donkey, the wheel has not even been invented yet according to my hon. colleague.

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

Madam Speaker, no rhetorical farce is ever fully complete without a cameo appearance by the member for Scarborough--Agincourt.

Speaking of donkeys coming to work, the idea of amortizing the cost of the equipment over the life of the equipment is standard practice in the private sector. I am not saying we should have 20 year old security equipment at airports 20 years from now. It would be up to the government to decide what constitutes the life of the equipment.

If the member believes that the airports should replace this equipment after five years, then the government should set it at five years and scale the cost of the equipment over five years, not in year one. All I am advocating is that anything would be better than paying it all in year one, which is what the government is planning to do.

It can scale it or pick a number but it should not pay all the cash up front. I will tell the member why. He is from a constituency in Toronto. Toronto has a lot of airline competition and it will continue over the years because of the size of the population. However I would invite the member to go to Grand Prairie or to Prince George. In fact, he might want to bring the former secretary of state for multiculturalism, the member for Vancouver Centre, when he goes to Prince George and investigate those supposed cross burnings while he is at it. He should go to Prince George, to Vernon, to Grand Prairie, to places in Saskatchewan, to Churchill Falls and tell the people that the government should pay cash up front for all this equipment, which it does not need to do, and that they have to pay a huge tax up front which could drive small, local, regional air carriers into the ground and people will not have jet service.

The member can make glib comments all he wants about donkeys, dinosaurs and all that nonsensical stuff, but it is a substantive policy question that will have a real impact on small communities and local small regional carriers. I would encourage him to take a plane outside of Toronto or Ottawa, because the impact is real. I do not say that as some rhetorical slap, I mean that sincerely. He should fly to remote parts of this country and tell them there that there will not be an impact from this tax, because they will tell him a very different story.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to have all my colleagues here today and to address this issue.

It is interesting that the one thing I have not heard in here today is perhaps a little mention of what has gone on in the last couple of days in relation to why we are even having this debate.

I would not say that we enjoyed it, but for many of us it was an incredibly moving experience to watch some of the programs on television and read some of the articles about some of the survivors, and to see the demonstration in New York City with the pillars of light reaching up to the sky. The commentary was that they were reaching up close to where the heroes are at the present time.

We have had six months to digest what actually happened. It is such a remarkable time to be in public office and involved in positions of leadership in our community, to try to discuss the plan and how we should be reacting. Someone said in here that we were not prepared for 9/11. I have to say that probably is true. I cannot imagine that anyone was prepared or had a plan in place to deal with the scope of what we witnessed on September 11.

For members to stand here now, six months later, and hurl accusations across the floor that we were not prepared, frankly seems somewhat trite and a waste of our time. On the other side of the coin, I hear little snippets of comments being made by members opposite indicating that they support many of the actions taken by the government, that they recognize that there have been some very tough decisions around new bills for security, potentially infringing on people's rights and their ability to move around this country, never mind crossing the border into the United States or flying overseas.

We live in such an incredibly different world. It is something that we could only have imagined in a fiction novel or an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie or something like that but it is here and it is every day. MPs come and go from this place on a weekly basis. On a Thursday afternoon or evening we go to the airport in Ottawa where we face lineups sometimes for more than an hour just to go through the security.

[An hon. member]

Shame.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

My colleague says shame but I am not going to complain about it, not when I am there. I want to make sure they are doing everything they have to do. If it means a bit of a delay, then so be it.

I have some trouble understanding why it is so difficult to leave Ottawa through the airport as opposed to Pearson where I find the flow is quite easy and back to normal. It is still secure. The staff certainly check everyone and all the electronics but there is not a lineup for 45 minutes or an hour to get on an aircraft. I am not totally clear as to why that is.

I am used to getting heckled from the other side but not from my own colleagues. This is quite an experience but if that is how I have to debate I am quite prepared to do that as well without a problem.

I just raise the point that when I hear the criticisms I try to read between the lines. I have seen a little softening because members opposite realize that Canadians expect tough security now. They understand the importance of it. They understand that we live in a different world. Maybe there is a bit of this 9/11 fatigue but I do not think so.

I have heard some in the media say that people are feeling fatigued about the whole issue. However I think it is still something that burns in the soul, in the heart and in the mind of every person in the world who saw the horrific calamity that occurred on September 11.

There are some costs that go with these issues, these problems. Some of the difficulty frankly that I have with some of my friends opposite, particularly, is that they seem to want action and solutions, but they do not want to pay for it or they do not like the way the government has decided to pay for it. I have heard nothing but criticism of the tax at the airports in the last two days of debate.

Let us have an alternative because we have to pay for it. I am sure no one on the other side of the House is suggesting that we should not have the security in place at the airports. If indeed we are going to have that, we have to pay for it.

We can bash our airlines all we want. I for one am a little tired of the hits on Air Canada. It is just struggling to survive like everybody else. The impact on that airline is no less significant than the impact on every airline in North America. Yet we tend to want to shoot the messenger or we want to pick on something that is most unpopular because perhaps it is seen as a monopoly.

I personally am proud of Air Canada. It offers a fine service. As Canadians we need to ensure that the airline continues to be profitable and is able to service all communities. At the same time it has to be safe and secure. The people at Air Canada know that, and we have to pay for that.

The solution I hear from the opposite side is that they want all these security issues and they want us to go to war. I think there was a time when one of the leaders of the opposition, I cannot remember which one, stood up and demanded that the Prime Minister send our aircraft off to war. I remember the Prime Minister asked that the hon. member to please tell him exactly where they should be sent. The opposition had no idea. It just wanted them to get out there, mount their horses and go get those guys.

I am afraid it is just not that simple. This is an extremely sophisticated world we live in with a lot of difficulties. As a result of that, we have to find new and creative ways. The most important thing that I believe the government and the Prime Minister did immediately following 9/11 was not to have a knee-jerk reaction. They calmly surveyed the situation, studied what had to be done, talked to our friends in the United States and developed a plan that made some sense.

I have heard very little criticism from the opposition or anywhere in the country about the appointment of our new Deputy Prime Minister to head up our homeland defence along with the governor of Pennsylvania in the United States. These two men have been working very hard over the last several months and as recently as in the last couple of days to develop an action plan. It is a 30 point security action plan to deal with the borders.

Instead of focusing on all the good things, which I will try to do in a moment, what do we hear from the opposite side, and I am talking about the Alliance? We hear that it is terrible and that we have terrorist cells operating in our country. We hear that we have refugees that are sneaking in in the dead of night across an undefended border. Our immigration system is a disaster.

I remember turning on the CBC news in my hotel room in Saint John, New Brunswick. A congressman from Texas by the name of Lamar Smith was being interviewed. He said that he thought the big problem that led to September 11 was the leaky Canadian border. I am quite sure that Lamar Smith has never been north of the Mason-Dixon Line. Good old Lamar said that he had figured out what the problem was. Guess who buys into that. All the folks with pickup trucks outside with curtains in the windows. They are buying into that kind of attitude and mentality.

It is absolutely disgraceful. It is almost as if some people are disappointed that we have not been able to link at least one of the 19 terrorists who carried out that deed on September 11 to Canada. It would be great theatre in here if we found out that one of those people came out of this country or had actually lived here.

To finish that thought, the other thing we hear is that we should harmonize our borders and do everything the Americans do. Excuse me, I do not want to be hard but I wear a pin on my lapel that has both a Canadian and American flag. I feel the same kind of warmth and friendship to our neighbours in the United States as others feel. I went to a boarding school 100 years ago where many of my classmates were from the United States. I have a lot of friends on the other side of the border.

It was not our immigration system that broke down. It was theirs. It was not our security system that broke down. It was theirs. It was not our flight instructors who enrolled these people in educational programs to teach them how to fly an aircraft. It was theirs. Does that mean that all of a sudden they are bad people or they did not do their homework?

We know Americans are very conscious about security and their position in the world. Long before 9/11 we saw on the news people burning American flags. We know the U.S. is a controversial nation throughout the world. However, on balance, it does a lot of good as the largest, most powerful nation of democratic freedom loving people in this world. I stand shoulder to shoulder with my American friends.

I reject anyone who either criticizes this government for not somehow cozying up to them or who says that we need to do more and meld all our policies together. I reject that because there is one thing I am proud of, in spite of the fact that I am proud to be a Canadian next door to the United States. I am proud to see the good hard work that our Deputy Prime Minister is doing in a calm, reasonable fashion to put together a 30 point action plan.

Our immigration committee toured the borders shortly after 9/11. The chairman of the committee took half the committee out into western Canada and as vice-chair I led the rest of the committee into eastern Canada. We went to St. Stephen and to Woodstock, New Brunswick; to Lacolle, Quebec; to Compton--Stanstead, Quebec; and to the airport in Dorval. We did not just stay on the Canadian side. We walked across bridges and through checkpoints. We met with Americans who did the same kind of work as their Canadian counterparts.

Across our border of 8,800 kilometres, Canada already deploys more people at the border than the United States. That is not what Lamar Smith would tell us and it sure is not what we hear from our friends in opposition, but it is a fact. Canada has 350 citizenship and immigration inspectors and 2,400 customs inspectors. The U.S. has 700 customs inspectors, 512 immigration inspectors and 310 border patrols.

Am I here to criticize them, to say that they are not doing enough to secure their border? No. I want to find out what the problems are. How do we bring a sense of confidence to both nations? We have to realize something. We are not just talking about people here. Eighty-seven per cent of our exports out of this country go to the United States. Canadians might be surprised to know that 25% of American exports come into Canada. It is not only people we are talking about, although obviously that is a critical factor. We are also talking about the flow of goods both ways.

The United States cannot afford to close the border any more than we can. What would happen to that country if it lost some large percentage of 25% of their exports into Canada? That is not in the cards and the Americans know that. That is not what we want to do.

How do we develop policies and programs that will secure the flow of goods and ensure that people can cross as freely as possible, as long as proper checks have been put in place?

I will briefly tell a story about a place called Lacolle, Quebec. It is on the Quebec-Vermont border, unlike the West Wing show that said it was the Ontario-Vermont border. That locale does not exist but it does exist if one goes to Vermont and the province of Quebec.

Lacolle is at the end of I-95 in the United States, which runs from the south end right through the states. People come up in buses who are not American citizens, but they are in the United States on legal visas. They are there studying or visiting or working in some capacity. They get off the bus and walk across the border into Canada and declare themselves to be refugees. How many are there? There are 5,000 people per year.

How many do the opposite? How many go from Canada and walk across the border into the United States in the same timeframe? There are 58. Someone might say that that is crazy and ask why it is happening. It is a thing called a safe third country agreement, which does not exist between our two nations and has been resisted up to now by the Americans.

It basically says, pursuant to the commitments of both countries under the Geneva convention, that we agree to provide safe harbour to people who are legitimate refugees. Our deal is to ensure that they are safe. We both accept refugees. If they are in the United States they are safe and no one would argue that they are not or that they are subjected to persecution or some kind of political difficulty or things of that nature. If they are in the United States, why are they allowed to walk across the border into Canada, 5,000 strong at one place in Quebec, and claim refugee status? It makes no sense at all.

We and the Americans can live up to our commitments under the Geneva convention by simply saying to those 5,000 people that we are sorry but if they want to come to Canada, the route is that they must apply for landed immigrant status in our country and it can be done right back from where they came.

That is not being cruel to those people. That is not subjecting them to some kind of cruel and unusual punishment. They are simply going back into the United States of America, a safe third country, at which time they can apply to come to Canada.

In spite of the perhaps lack of total understanding of the relationship between the two countries by some of our political colleagues in the United States, hopefully we will arrive at an agreement fairly soon which will see both Canada and the U.S. not allowing refugee claimants to come from either country, Canada to the U.S. or the U.S. to Canada. Why is that important?

It seems to me that it is fairly obvious. What that then does is free up the resources that are needed to process these people on either side of the border. This is not a unique problem to Lacolle, Quebec. The committee that went to western Canada, led by the chairman of the committee, found that the same thing happening out west.

There are some things we can do and are doing as it relates to immigration. We need not throw out the fearmongering of refugees and all these people coming through in the night. In spite of the fact that we have all of these border crossings and unpatrolled areas, we entered into an agreement called the IBET agreement. We recently expanded it to the marine sector as well.

Teams of Canadians and Americans will work together along the undefended stretch of border. They will patrol on horseback, not donkeys as the member from Scarborough talked about earlier, on ATVs, on snowmobiles and in boats. Our two countries are working together.

In spite of the fact that in this hallowed place we from time to time have difficulty working together we can be assured that our men and women on the frontline, at the borders, in border patrols, and in the IBET system are working hand in hand with their counterparts in the United States. They even actually intermarry and develop families together, live together and work together.

We have a safe and secure border that can be and will be improved with our 30 point action plan led by our Deputy Prime Minister.

[Jim Abbott, Canadian Alliance, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, every now and then I find myself, to my surprise, agreeing with the member for Mississauga West. I completely agree with him about the issue of a safe third country. I also agree with the start of his speech where he talked about the fact that the government was not prepared for September 11. During the course of his dissertation I was wondering what he had against people who owned pickup trucks. In my constituency we call them country limousines.

It was the former Reform Party, now the Canadian Alliance, who was driving home the issue to the government that the refugee determination system was completely broken down. It was this party that was driving home the fact that the ports police should never have been disbanded. It was this party that finally forced the solicitor general into giving some funding and some upgrade to the CPIC system enabling it to track criminal activity.

The minister for international financial institutions, who is in the House with us today, said yesterday that there had not been any kind of study relative to the cost or the benefit or how much profit there would be as far as the airport tax was concerned. That $24 charge would take a highly creative and inventive airline like WestJet to its knees because of its low cost and the fact that it was tacking an additional $24. The minister admitted yesterday that he and his government had no idea how bad this was going to be for WestJet.

Apart from the $24, considering that his government has finally, as a result of September 11, decided to put between $200 million and $250 million into security, how does he feel that $200 million to $250 million measures up to the $700 million and counting that the government has already put into a useless gun registry that simply registers duck hunter's guns?

This is the most ridiculous comparison in the world. The government is putting three times as much money and taxpayer resources into a useless registry system as it is putting into a system that would give Canadians safe and secure borders in our country. Would the hon. member care to comment on that?

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Before I allow the hon. member to answer the question I remind all hon. members that we do not mention the presence or the absence of any member in the House.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Madam Speaker, it never fails. In any debate, no matter what it is, it could even be health care, we somehow come back to gun control from Alliance members. My only advice is they should get over it, register their guns, stop the whining and deal with the real issues.

I hear suggestions that the Alliance has had some ideas that it has put into the mix. I have spent some time travelling with this member and he does have good ideas. Some of his colleagues have also actually put forward good ideas. It is unfortunate that from time to time everyone starts elbowing to get up on the stage so they can all take credit instead of working together in a co-operative and responsive way.

I could come back and tell the House that it was the Alliance that demanded that we close down CIDA, for example, during the election and now it supports giving money to the Afghani people. There are all kinds of positions that we could discuss in terms of its responsibility. However that is not really what I wanted to do here today.

Some of our airlines are doing well and starting to do better. WestJet has recently made some announcements. It has acquired some new aircraft. I hope it burns up the skies because the more planes we have going the better opportunity we have to create increased competition and lower prices and move Canadians around. It is time we stopped bashing Air Canada and started realizing how important that company is to the future economic success of the country.

We have to pay for these security measures one way or another. This is in fact a user pay fee and I am astounded that the party that would be if nothing else a party of user pay is opposed to this. However I guess it has run out of things to be opposed to.