Steve Mahoney

[Supply, April 25th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this particular issue. I find myself in agreement with one of the questioners from the Progressive Conservative Party when he said that the Bloc Quebecois will have to forgive us on this side of the House and those in other parties if we are perhaps a little suspicious when a Bloc opposition day motion comes before this place suggesting that the province of Quebec is hard done by in relation to other provinces in the country. We are somewhat suspicious that perhaps there is another agenda involved in the motion.

During my five years in this place, while travelling with committees both in Canada and abroad, I have been pleasantly surprised by the work ethic and the attitude of many members of the Bloc Quebecois. I say that save and except for the one issue that drives virtually everything that the party stands for, which is the separation of the province of Quebec and the creation of its own country separate and distinct from Canada.

Unfortunately, when we read a motion that might simply call for assistance to a particular industrial sector in a particular part of the country, we find ourselves reading between the lines. That point was well made during the question and answer session, and it is bound to colour the debate in this place. However I will not let that happen, at least from my perspective. I will simply point out some facts.

To suggest, as the previous speaker said, that the auto industry in Quebec has suffered at the hands of the auto industry in Ontario, is patently false. In fact there may well be an argument that people who decided to invest in new auto plants in places like Cambridge or Alliston in the province of Ontario, may have considered going to Quebec at some time if there had been a better atmosphere of stability in the political life in that province.

No one questions the quality of the workers. No one questions the quality of the community life. What investors look for when they want to invest in a particular location is the likelihood for stability. What we have seen in the province of Quebec, particularly over the past couple of years, is a complete lack of interest in the agenda put forward by the Parti Quebecois in the province of Quebec and the Bloc Quebecois here in the House of Commons.

Quebecers, by and large, tell us in poll after poll, in meeting after meeting, in riding after riding and in byelection after byelection that they are not interested in that agenda. They want the same thing every other Canadian wants. They want a job with some security. They want a community where they feel safe. They want good quality education for their children. They want good quality health care. They also want a future as part of this great nation of Canada.

Let me share with the House some statistics in relation to the overall economy in this country. When things go into recession, provincial governments will often blame the federal government. However, when things go well, those same provincial governments tend to take credit for the economic boom and growth that is going on. It has nothing to do with federal policies. It has nothing to do with the largest tax cut in the history of this nation of $100 million. Might that fuel some economic activity in every province, including Quebec?

It has nothing to do with low interest rates, and yet when those provincial governments or certain interest groups in the provinces get nervous they might want us to raise or lower interest rates or artificially raise the dollar or do all of these gerrymandering activities of social interference on behalf of the government to somehow affect the economy.

We cannot take credit unilaterally as a federal government because this is a federation built on partnership. I would admit that when jobs increase in every part of the country it has as much to do with the policies of the provincial and municipal governments, the boards of trade, chambers of commerce, union halls and the construction industry. It has as much to do with all of that as it does with the federal government, but clearly the federal government has a role in setting the tone: balancing our budget eight years in a row; delivering unheard of surpluses on a consistent annual basis; and showing the kind of fiscal responsibility and leadership that give confidence to business to invest in the country. We constantly hear people opposite say that we are losing investment to the United States. The fact is that we are gaining investment from all over the world. People from every part of the world look at Canada and say what a marvelous place it is.

I recently travelled with our immigration committee to Beijing, Shanghai and Hong Kong and was very interested to note that the province of Quebec has offices in the same building, indeed, in a couple of cases on the same floor, as the Government of Canada. They work together on looking for economic opportunities. In some parts of the world, offices of the province of Ontario can be found, not everywhere, but I see Quebec offices virtually everywhere. Offices for the province of British Columbia can be found in some parts of the world. Again they are not everywhere, but I see Quebec offices everywhere. They are working co-operatively.

It might come as a surprise to the residents in the province of Quebec and the constituents of the hon. members opposite in the Bloc Quebecois that the people in those offices for Quebec work extremely well with their counterparts from the federal government. In fact they will say openly that they have the same goal, which is to bring investment, job growth and prosperity to Canada. Of course their interests are primarily directed at the people who employ them, their employers being the governments of the provinces of Quebec or Ontario or Alberta or British Columbia, but it is very much a hand in glove relationship and it is extremely positive.

I do not want to go on about the issue of separation, but I would add that if that particular dog were allowed to hunt we would lose that kind of relationship, I think, tragically and unfortunately. I should say as an aside that Premier Landry might be interested to know that his officer in the office in Shanghai presented us with a beautiful book on Quebec. When I opened it up there was a loose photograph of the premier, except that it was a photograph of Lucien Bouchard, not Premier Landry. I questioned the individual because I found it somewhat odd that there would be a photograph of a former premier in a document that they are handing out to anyone who visits. Hopefully that will change, because I think it is important that the individual in that office promote the province of Quebec as a place of investment with the current premier and government in place.

Let me share some job numbers, if I may. Retail and wholesale employers hired 18,000 more workers in March, bringing year over year growth to 4.1% since March 2001. Believe me, Quebec shared in that. Employment in agriculture grew by 12,000 jobs in March. More than half the increase was concentrated in Quebec, for over 7,000 jobs, likely influenced, I will admit, by unusually mild weather in addition to the policies of the government and of the province of Quebec in working co-operatively.

Quebec leads all employment growth across the country. Does that happen as a result of neglect by the federal government? I think not. I think the federal government must have some influence, something to say in addition to the efforts of the province, the municipalities and the businesses. I will again give some figures. Employment in Quebec was up 32,000 jobs in March, bringing year to date gains to 69,000. The unemployment rate fell 0.4 percentage points to 8.9%. I will admit that 8.9% unemployment is too high and we have to work with our partners in Quebec, that is, the government of Quebec, the businesses, the voters, the people who live in Quebec, to try to get that figure down.

In Ontario, as an example, to compare to the 32,000 jobs in March in the province of Quebec, employment rose by 17,000, bringing gains from the start of the year to 44,000. In British Columbia, employment was up by 11,000 jobs in March. In Alberta, 11,000 jobs fully offset a decrease it had gone through in the month of February.

Yet we do not hear people from the province of Alberta saying that they are being ignored at the expense of helping Ontario. I think their credibility would be stretched to say so. It is just nonsense. What we have in Ontario is a climate that welcomes business, that creates jobs. Again, it is this government, working in partnership with our provincial and municipal partners in our province, that is creating the jobs and economic growth. We are not doing it at the expense of other provinces. In fact the reality is that the provinces of Ontario and Alberta are fast becoming the only “have”, if you will, provinces in the Confederation. We have to revisit that, look at it and perhaps ensure that we are indeed transferring our growth opportunities and our investments all around this great country.

Even in Manitoba there were 7,000 new jobs, bringing total gains since August to 13,000. In New Brunswick there were 6,000 jobs in March and the unemployment rate was down by 0.8%. In Newfoundland and Labrador, where everyone would say they have some of the most difficult economic situations to deal with in terms of their transportation problems, lack of foreign investment and lack of jobs, there was an employment increase of 3,000 in March, again reducing the unemployment rate.

Let me deal specifically with the motion. I am just trying to set the tone, if I may, that there is economic prosperity in our land, there is growth in jobs, there are low interest rates, there are balanced budgets, there are tax cuts and there are benefits that every Canadian is seeing in terms of money in their pockets and quality of life for their families.

What did the federal government do with regard to the General Motors plant in the province of Quebec that is being referred to? Let me give some examples. First, the federal government has worked closely with the mayor of Boisbriand and the committee that was set up, le Comité de soutien de l'industrie automobile dans les Basses-Laurentides, which is a task force of local business people, the Quebec government, the Canadian Autoworkers union and officials of both the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois. The federal government worked with that committee, along with the mayor, to try to keep the plant in operation and save jobs.

Let me say that the government deplores the decision of General Motors to close that plant. Under no circumstances are we happy about it, nor are we supportive of it, but at the end of the day General Motors is a profitable company. General Motors is not a company that I think the taxpayers by and large would agree with federal tax subsidies going to. It is a company that is highly competitive and highly profitable. I would challenge anybody in this place who thinks we should return to the day when we were simply handing out largesse or corporate welfare to corporations like General Motors, which has the ability to set up a business plan, to balance its own operations and to make its own decisions.

Notwithstanding that, the federal government saw the plight of the workers in that plant and therefore worked with the mayor, with the local committee, with the provincial government and even with members of the federal Bloc Quebecois Party to see what we could do to soften the blow or to save those jobs. Through our Canada economic development plan we supported the committee financially. We have gone to the well as much as we possibly could have to recognize the significance of this situation and to try to work with the local community. We led the negotiations at GM headquarters in Detroit in an attempt to resolve the concerns.

There are a number of other things our government has done and there is a point I want to make with regard to the workers. I think it is very important. I believe that most of the credit for this should rest with the Canadian Autoworkers, which negotiated a collective bargaining agreement that obviously had the welfare and the concerns of the people whom they represent, the workers at this plant, at heart. It is interesting to note, although I did not hear anyone opposite say this, that 90% of the people working in that plant will be eligible for early retirement. The collective bargaining agreement will ensure that salaries will be paid for up to three years. I think that is a pretty outstanding agreement negotiated with both General Motors and the Canadian Autoworkers on behalf of those people. There is a recognition by all parties concerned that this is a serious problem.

I have a situation in my neighbouring community. Many of my constituents work at the Ford plant in Oakville. Ford has made a decision to shut down one of the lines. It is no longer going to make the F-150 truck at the Ford plant. It will continue to make the van and it will continue to have a business there. It is not closing the plant, but it is closing a shift. Should we then as a government go to Ford and say that in spite of the fact that it is one of the most successful companies in its field, as is GM in North America, we should come along and use the taxpayers' money? Is that what I am hearing? Is that what people want us to do? In spite of the fact that there would be many people in my community who would be impacted by that Ford decision, I do not think even they would want me to suggest to the finance minister or the Prime Minister that somehow we should ride to the rescue and bail out some of these corporations.

I know for a fact that all the members opposite in all parties use the Human Resources Development Canada offices right across the land to help their displaced workers, to help their people who have families and who need assistance to get back on their feet after a job loss through no particular fault of their own. I know they will go to bat for their constituents and their workers through the employment insurance fund to make sure that their people are dealt with fairly and have an opportunity to get their lives back together.

These are difficult times and difficult decisions. When we figure that through a form of attrition, through guaranteed collective bargaining, 90% will be looked after financially and then with HRDC's assistance some opportunities will be put in place for retraining, it is unfair, and as I said earlier perhaps it is politically motivated, to suggest that the federal government should be condemned for these actions.

When companies look to invest in our communities we know from statistical analysis that they look for a number of things. They look for stability in the community. They look for quality education for their children. They look for safety in the community. They look for affordable housing. They look for good transportation for their employees. They look for an available well trained labour force. They look for financial competence and leadership from the municipal, provincial and federal governments.

That kind of leadership exists in my city of Mississauga. I know it exists across the country. In spite of the protestations from the members opposite, I also know it exists in the province of Quebec. Frankly, I think this condemnation is slightly out of order.

[Species at Risk Act, March 21st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, to a certain degree it is with a little bit of trepidation that I rise on this because I was not involved in the committee that studied this issue to the extent that perhaps some other members were.

However I am a member of parliament and must vote on the bill. Therefore I must understand it, take time to study it and look at all the ramifications. As members of parliament we all have an obligation to stake out our positions, whether in support or against the government or whether in support or against the committee.

The previous speaker made a statement and I think he said that absolutely nobody supports the government bill. That is simply not true. Perhaps he heard that statement. I would not accuse that member of saying something that was untrue but it is just not factual.

For example, much to my surprise, the cattlemen's association and the mining association supported the government approach on compensation. I would have thought that those were two groups to which many people, particularly from the west or from mining communities, would listen. There is some support there.

Provinces such as Alberta, Ontario, Manitoba and New Brunswick and all territories are all concerned about the committee amendments that change the balance between federal and provincial jurisdiction. There are members on the committee other than some of the ones who have spoken who will support the bill.

Let me talk, if I might, in terms of the criticisms levied against the government because members of the government caucus disagree with the government's position. It is always an interesting conundrum to hear members opposite and the media say that Liberal backbenchers must stand up and show some spine, that they have to be prepared to take positions against the government. What happens when they do? There are three particular members who have spoken or will speak on this issue for whom I have a lot of respect when it comes to environmental issues. I will listen to their arguments and judge whether or not I agree with them.

Just because I respect their knowledge or positions does not mean that at the end of the day I am always going to agree. Today we are dealing with amendments most of which I will admit are housekeeping but some of which are substantive, When those members stand to speak and stiffen their spines as they are encouraged to do particularly by members opposite people will stand up in this place and say, is it not awful the government will not listen and will not allow their respected members to continue speaking.

We know full well that the opposition would obviously rather listen to a distinguished member of the Liberal Party speak against the government than another member of the opposition. We understand that. That is not rocket science. If I were sitting over there I would probably want to do the same thing. The reality is that these committee members did their work, they put forward their arguments and the committee came forward with recommendations. Now it is up to the government to make a decision.

I am the vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. We just released our committee report this morning in a press conference at 10.30. Members from the government side were forced in many instances to put some water in our wine as it related to that particular bill. There were members in our caucus who spoke out against that particular bill several months ago when it was introduced, when the regulations were introduced, particularly as they relate to things like retroactivity and the new grid that would be used.

I only use this as an example to compare it to this particular bill and to these amendments. If we were to decide at the end of the day that given the rejection of the government of certain recommendations that we as backbenchers in the Liberal government have made, that as a result there is no way in our good conscience we can vote for the bill, then we should stiffen our spines. I have no difficulty with that and I know the government has no difficulty with that.

However in reality this is what we need to do because this is the art of the possible. Is it better to have no bill in this instance? Is it better not to have a process in which endangered species can be offered protection? I think of a place like the Oak Ridges Moraine. One of the recent speakers said this is largely a rural issue. In fact there are many parts of this great country that are going through the transition from rural to urban. The Oak Ridges Moraine in the greater Toronto area is a classic example. If rampant developments were allowed to take place there would be drainage of the water table that would destroy habitat. It would make it impossible for certain species to find food, to reproduce and to survive. With all due respect it is not just a rural issue.

I will grant that in most parts of rural Canada we will find more endangered species because there are fewer of us intruding upon their habitat, but it is still a factor in our own communities. In the Credit River valley, going right through the heart of the city of Mississauga, a city with over 600,000 people, I can assure the House that there are endangered species in that valley ecosystem that we would want to protect.

We need some rules. We need some understanding. We need a process.

I personally had a run in with an endangered species. I have a property in the Parry Sound area where I wanted to build a road. The MNR, the provincial ministry, came in and discovered the nest of a red-shouldered hawk, much to my surprise, on my property within 30 or 40 feet of the right of way where I wanted to build the road. Guess what? We were well along in the process and all of a sudden it was stopped. One red-shouldered hawk put an end to me having reasonable, easy access to my property. I must go by boat to get there as a result of that hawk.

I must say I had mixed feelings. At first, since I was getting older, I wished I could have this. Someone said I could take care of it, but I would not do that. At the end of the day this made my property that much more sacred to me. As a result we found a second nest. This is a very rare hawk which is in danger of extinction. I support the re-establishment of the committee that would come up with the definitions, scientific data and research that is needed to determine whether or not the red-shouldered hawk should in fact be put on the endangered species list. That is what the bill would do.

If we want to throw out the baby with the bath water, or the red hawk with the nest, then by all means trash the bill, but let us face it and look at some of the statistics. There were 334 motions tabled during clause by clause review. I know how grueling that is, having sat through at least that many in terms of the immigration bill, Bill C-11. I know how taxing it is. The committee passed 125 of the 334 motions tabled. That is a lot of work, research, and debate. Of these the government supports 75. The ministry requirement to have an assessment by the committee within 90 days is a substantial improvement to the situation.

I understand the passion and the feelings of those folks within the government caucus who will not be able to vote in support of the bill.

In this business one learns to put some water in the wine. There are victories that can be achieved by working through the committee process, the caucus process and perhaps even at report stage in this place. However at the end of the day a decision has to be made and my decision will be to support the bill.

[Supply, March 14th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, probably the best way we could help Saint John is to have the hon. member return and be mayor again. Clearly she is renowned for having done a marvellous job in that regard.

I do not have a simple solution. There is not one. I think I made the point that there is a simple solution for all major problems in government which is usually the wrong one.

What we have to do is appeal to the good common sense of people like President Bush and others in the United States to recognize that Canada is a sovereign nation. It is interesting to see us go from the opposition wrapping itself in the American flag one day to trashing it the next and saying we have to fight them, man the turrets and do all that stuff. The reality is the U.S. is a friend and a business partner in many different relationships.

We have to impress upon the Americans that 25% of their exports come into our country and 87% of ours goes into their country. This is truly a partnership. There is a bit of an imbalance in the percentage. Yet we do much better on the dollar side of that equation having a very strong balance in our trade relation with the Americans.

It is a win-win. We have to say to President Bush and to all Americans that we do not need to be fighting among each other over these things. We can work together. We can provide good quality products in wood or in steel. Their consumers, home builders and taxpayers can benefit from them. In turn we will take many different products from them and people in Canada will benefit. There has to be some quid pro quo. There has to be co-operation. I am confident that is where we are headed.

[Supply, March 14th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Vancouver Centre. More and more in the House we are hearing debates on opposition day motions wherein members of the opposition seem to be struggling to find a position that substantively criticizes the actions of the government and to be moving on to more personalized attacks against the government.

I would like to bring this debate back to more of a businesslike atmosphere rather than the chirping that seems to be coming from across the way. I do not mind that; it tends to motivate and encourage me to carry on with my remarks.

I want to point out a couple of things. The first is that I really believe what is happening here is actually an attack on our sovereignty as a nation. It is an attack on our ability through our Confederation to determine how we will do business within our country and with other parts of the world.

Let us take the issue of stumpage. Stumpage, for the folks at home, is basically a system used by the provincial governments to manage the forests. They give out licences to lumber companies that in turn go out and harvest, and I use the word harvest because that is exactly what it is, the product from the forest under terms of the agreement that require them to replenish what they take away. The object under a proper forest management program strategy is that we not deplete what is clearly an important resource to our country.

The Americans do not like that because they operate a little differently. They simply go out in the world of let the strongest survive and buy the stumpage, buy the forest and do with it what they will. I do not challenge their right to do that. I would say, though, that under agreements like Kyoto and in other environmental areas there are concerns internationally about too much clear-cutting and raping of the land.

I would hope the Americans would look at it as more than just a trade dispute and recognize the impact that unfettered forestry operations could have on the environment. It also has a major impact on the economy.

We cannot sit back and tell the Americans to go ahead and tell us how we should manage our forests. Under the terms of Confederation that is a provincial responsibility. The issue we are debating is one of fair and free trade. What has happened?

Let us be fair to our friends south of the border in this regard. How do they compete with a 62 cent or 63 cent dollar? On top of that, how do they compete with an industry that is much more efficient, that produces a better quality product which their consumers are demanding in huge numbers?

They have difficulty because they would have to then turn around and invest tens or maybe hundreds of millions of dollars to upgrade the quality of their industry, of what they are producing in terms of a quality product. How can they address this issue? Either they make those investments over the long term and compete with the good quality Canadian wood or they call up George and slap on a duty. That is the easier way for them to do it. By slapping on a duty they then make our products more expensive to consumers in the United States.

I am quite sure the Prime Minister will be pointing out to President Bush that a number of very important groups in the United States actually want Canadian softwood lumber. Consumer associations have called for it. The housing and building industries are demanding that they be allowed to have access to softwood lumber.

A company we all know well, Home Depot, has stated on record in the United States that this is an unfair duty, that it is anti-free trade and that it should be eliminated.

I say to my friends opposite that the wording of their motion is almost like motherhood. Their simple solution is that we should somehow negotiate an agreement. For every major problem in government there is a simple solution and it is inevitably the wrong solution. What we need to do with the Americans is to put in place a long term sustainable agreement.

Our minister has met with and negotiated agreements with the provinces and industry. This is a dispute that has been going on back and forth for 20 or 25 years in one way or another. People are standing with the minister on a platform and saying that for the first time there is a united front in Canada.

People can poke fun at the fact that Canada is not as big and powerful as the United States. However let us not take away the impact that a trade war would have on both sides of the border. Some 87% of our exports go to the United States. An official opposition member suggested that all team Canada trade missions should be cancelled until this dispute is solved. What a brilliant strategy it would be to tell everyone around the world that we will stay in bed, pull the covers over our head and not carry on trade until this one dispute is resolved.

For members opposite to suggest in any way that the government has not taken firm action is just ludicrous. It is painting a picture to suggest that somehow we have poisoned relationships. A member opposite accused our Prime Minister of stating during the last federal election in the United States that he was rooting for the Democrats. Comments like that are misleading the Canadian public. It is very unfortunate that members opposite would use this kind of tactic during a serious debate on an issue which has an impact on jobs in virtually every part of the country.

People ask me why someone from Mississauga would care about this dispute. Let us think of the impact in a community like Mississauga with its growth rate and the building that has gone on in the housing industry. Let us think of the economic impact if our lumber industry were severely damaged. When 10,000 people lose their jobs in Thunder Bay in the lumber industry, I can assure the House that the ripple effect will come down the Great Lakes into Mississauga, into the greater Toronto area and throughout the rest of Canada. There is no question.

This is not just a British Columbia issue. I do not deny the significance to British Columbia. It is critical. I hope we can resolve it to save jobs in that province. However this is a critical issue for Ontario, New Brunswick and for every part of the province of Quebec. It is critical for all of us.

Alliance members have an attitude of wanting to embarrass the government. They pontificate about how supposedly we do not care about the issue. I would suggest that our Minister for International Trade has done a lot of things in the past well, but no issue has been worked on more diligently and with greater effort than the dispute in softwood lumber.

We had success in the steel negotiations. It could have been catastrophic for Algoma Steel and my home town of Sault Ste. Marie if we had not been able to make a deal that made sense and at least gave us an exclusion from what the Americans did. I do not happen to like what they did in other parts of the world, but we are not elected to represent all of the world.

We have to protect Canadian business interests, Canadian jobs and the Canadian economy. I challenge anyone in this place who says the government is not doing that. As we speak our Prime Minister is meeting with the president and we will hopefully get a resolution to this issue.

[Herb Gray, March 13th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, Herb Gray was first elected to parliament on June 18, 1962. He served for 39 years, six months and 28 days. Herb has done it all.

In government he was parliamentary secretary: minister of national revenue; minister of consumer and corporate affairs; minister of industry, trade and commerce; minister of regional economic Eepansion; and Ppesident of the treasury board.

In opposition he was finance critic; House leader; deputy leader; and leader of the official opposition.

Back in government he was House leader; solicitor general; Deputy Prime Minister, in charge of the millennium bureau, Indian residential schools resolution and any other difficult issue.

Herb's peers in this place recognize his strength, courage, compassion and dedication. We and all Canadians owe him a debt of gratitude for his dedicated service over the last 40 years. We thank Herb. May God bless him.

[Point of Order, March 12th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, let me deal with the issue of the security tax. I suppose we could have announced that there would be an increase in, for instance, the GST. We could increase that, or increase income tax, or do something more broad based, but the important aspect of this tax is that it pays for a service that is absolutely vital.

I assure members that I talk to people as I travel and to people in my community. They say to not quibble over $12 or $24. They want to make sure that their loved ones return and that they can move anywhere in this country or this continent and feel safe. That is the message that I have received quite clearly.

The hon. member said the Alliance did not want the country to go to war. This was not a debate about whether we should or should not go to war. We did not know where the war was. That was the issue. However that did not seem to matter to the leadership in the Alliance. It wanted us to send our troops off in the early days, to just get them going. Every day in question period it urged the government to just get them going, to get them over there and start fighting. That is the kind of lack of preparedness and lack of thought that the government thankfully has avoided in its policies.

[Point of Order, March 12th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I am astounded that the member remembers any of my speeches. If I actually said that I am impressed that the member would actually remember it.

We all know we live in a different world since 9/11. We have all made speeches about the changes in the way we do things. We all realize that it has been absolutely necessary to respond in as broad, comprehensive and tough way as possible while maintaining the identity of being Canada. I think we have done that.

We see the airport security tax everyday as we travel across the country. We have increased security. The Canadian public supports it. The only people who do not support it are the people on the other side of the House.

[Point of Order, March 12th, 2002]

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.

[Point of Order, March 12th, 2002]

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.

[Point of Order, March 12th, 2002]

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.