Joe Jordan

[Customs Act, September 21st, 2001]

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.

[Customs Act, September 21st, 2001]

He said it and he does not have one.

[Customs Act, September 21st, 2001]

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.

[Questions No. 61, September 21st, 2001]

I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 21st, 2001]

Madam Speaker, if Questions Nos. 44, 50, 55, 57 and 61 could be made orders for returns, the returns would be tabled immediately.

[Questions on the Order Paper, September 21st, 2001]

Madam Speaker, Question No. 58 will be answered today.

[Government Response to Petitions, September 21st, 2001]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 11 petitions.

[Canada-U.S. Meeting, September 20th, 2001]

Mr. Chairman, I want to close by saying that we have had three debates already this week on this topic and we will and certainly should have more. We will be engaging parliament as committees will be engaging Canadians.

In terms of what form our response takes, we have heard discussions on that tonight. We have heard discussions on the where, the when and the how of our response. However the message the Prime Minister can take to the president of the United States is that we need no debate on the why of our response. We are responding and we will respond with resolve because justice and liberty were attacked and those fundamental values for all democracies, including Canada, need and will be defended.

I thank my colleagues and I thank the opposition for suggesting the debate this evening. I assure the House that as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister I have taken note of the themes and messages in tonight's debate and I will be reporting those directly to the Prime Minister prior to his meeting with the president of the United States.

[Attack on the United States, September 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to begin my intervention by saying on behalf of the constituents of Leeds--Grenville that we certainly have our American friends in our hearts, in our thoughts and in our prayers. Much like your own riding, Mr. Speaker, mine is one where the vast majority of my constituents can walk out the front door and see New York State across the St. Lawrence River.

I listened intently to the debate today and I am heartened by a number of the themes that are coming through. One of the first themes that seems to be woven through just about every member's comments is the notion that we will not have vigilante justice on our streets. We will be patient, we will get the facts and we will not identify any one ethnic group or religious group for retribution, because clearly these terrorists do not speak for any one ethnic group. There is a disconnect between them and the issues and problems that are facing people from the regions where they train and practise their craft.

That leads to my question. It goes back to something that the hon. member's colleague from Fraser Valley touched on. I think it was a very important distinction to make. I too was troubled because the debate for a while seemed to be taking on the steam that there was some sort of moral equivalency between what the terrorists did and what the foreign policies of the Americans have done to areas of that region. I categorically reject that notion. I find it repugnant.

I would like to ask the member if he would care to comment, because I think it is important that we make the distinction between having not revenge but justice. Whenever we get the chance I think it is important that those of us who feel this way clearly state that this act cannot be justified. It cannot be justified through any argument that somehow the actions of the United States brought this on. I would just like to give the member the floor again so he could comment on that.

[Supply, June 12th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, this is merely a question, not a point of order. When I look at the reform of private members' business it strikes me that we run a risk if we start tweaking one place and have unintended consequences in others. Does the hon. member not think it would be worthwhile in terms of the process of reform to address the issue of committees?

In a system that is functioning at a high level, a lot of the frustration people are expressing about private members' business could probably be addressed at the committee. However for a variety of reasons, and these are not reasons or rules that we invented, the process seems to be that opposition amendments at committee do not generally see the light of day. They therefore turn up in one form or another in private members' business.

Does the hon. member not think it would be worthwhile to address the issue, role, function and structure of committees and then pick up what is left in private members' business? I feel we are trying to solve two problems at once.