Debates of March 12th, 2002

Points of Order

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

I hope so, Mr. Speaker.

[The Speaker]

I hope so. I do not want to hear a repeat.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, you asked a question of the House with respect to whether House leaders had met. I just wanted to go back to what I had said to you earlier. I believe that you framed the problem in such a way that there was no point in House leaders meeting yesterday. Given the fact that you framed it exactly the same way today, there is no point in House leaders meeting today about this matter as long as a particular party in the House, which has decided for whatever reasons to go beyond an agreement that we had, knows that it has the trump card by virtue of the way that you have ruled.

If you continue to insist that people who go beyond agreements, with good or bad intentions or with different understandings or whatever, have the trump card, if they know that the speaker will rule in favour of the person who goes beyond the agreement, why would we ever meet? Why would we ever have agreements, for that matter, because people would be free to break them and know that they would have the Chair on their side?

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

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to your comments and I would like some clarification. I believe you said that there was an agreement and that there now is not an agreement between all the opposition parties. Were you inferring that one party may later disagree with the agreement and break that agreement? Was that your inference? I would like to understand what you said.

[The Speaker]

I was not making any inference. I was simply saying that it appears that there is not an agreement. Whether one party has broken it or whether it was not made in the first place, I do not know. It seems to me that we have conflicting statements.

In the circumstances it is not for the Chair to decide how the agreement came to an end. What is apparent to me is that it appears to have come to an end. That is all I can say in answer to the hon. member.

[Dick Harris, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I should bring to your attention that this, by virtue of this incident that appears to be going the way of the PC Party, sets a precedent. It sets a precedent for any other agreement that has ever been made by the House leaders that is not carved in stone or written on paper.

As you know, the common process is that House leaders gather and reach an agreement. It is an honourable agreement that people are expected to abide with. From now and forever, for any agreement that was arrived at in a so-called honourable fashion by the House leaders, any party in the House could subsequently down the road say that it never really agreed to that and therefore it wants to have something happen that it prefers. No matter how we try to debate that, there will always be this precedent that we are talking about today.

What about the seating plan? That is something that we arrive at by general agreement. We do not sign a paper and say that this is the way the seating plan will go. We could very well stand up sometime during the day and say that the official opposition House leader never agreed to the seating plan, that we want the whole seating plan revisited and maybe we will agree on it and maybe we will not.

You have to understand the precedent that is set here. While members of the House are expected to be honourable in all things, it appears that when that honour does not serve their purpose they will have the opportunity, because of this precedent, to say that they never really did agree to that or that the agreement is off.

I need you to consider this and understand the very dangerous path that we could be going down in the House. It will place in jeopardy every future agreement that the House leaders make. They will be in severe jeopardy and that must not happen otherwise the House will simply become dysfunctional, more so than it is at times.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Prince George--Bulkley Valley ignores the fact that disputes sometimes arise around this place and I know that may come as a shock to many. We are in a situation now where it has been decided that this supply day motion is votable.

As my colleague from the NDP suggested, this is not an issue of siding with one party over another. This is a decision that is consistent with the standing orders and the rules of precedent. There is no precedent here. It is simply alarmist and untrue to say that all agreements are off and that this place will fall into chaos.

[The Speaker]

I will take the matter under advisement and we will proceed with orders of the day.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Supply

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the supply day motion which I moved, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton North. I would indicate to the Chair initially that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member.

I want to recognize the invaluable work that she and others, including Senator Lowell Murray of the other place, have done in moving forward on issues of parliamentary democracy and reforming the way in which we operate in this place in such a way that we could bring about greater accountability and responsibility, not just on the part of the government, but on the part of all parliamentarians by raising the level of debate, the degree of participation and the pure and simple degree of democracy that is at work in this important institution.

This supply day motion condemns and points out that the Liberal government is failing on a number of fronts. It is failing with respect to the security measures that it has implemented, not only post-September 11 of last year, but also with respect to the level of democracy at work in this important institution.

The government has had a strong and destructive hand in dismantling a number of important institutions not the least of which is this very House of Commons.

What I am speaking of in more pointed and specific terms is the dismantling of Canada's ports police. That decision was taken specifically in 1997 but brought about almost immediately. The government put in place a plan after its election in 1993 to starve off or choke out the resources, the importance and the relevance of Canada's ports police.

A similar effort was taken toward our Canadian military and we have seen the costs associated with that. We have now seen what I view and what others see, including a Senate report which was published last week, as a great vulnerability in Canada's ports. There is a great deal of threat that now exists with regard to that water point of entry which makes up an important part of this country's boundaries.

If individuals of nefarious intent wish to bring contraband material, illegal migrants, or explosives of any sort into this country today, clearly their least likely opportunity is at a border crossing or at an airport. Sadly, and I do not say this to be alarmist or to in any way be pessimistic about any future threat to Canada, our borders on the water are clearly a vulnerable and virtually unpatrolled entity at this time.

This factor has been contributed to greatly by the ill-fated and unsubstantiated decision taken by the government to disband Canada's ports police. It has been coupled and aggravated by budget cuts to Canada's coast guard where it is unable to patrol our waters to a large degree. We have currently deployed over 50% of our naval capacity, therefore again, leaving our coastal waters and ports vulnerable to any sort of attack or attempt to bring materials into this country.

The Progressive Conservative democratic coalition has been at the forefront of the security debate for some time. While the Liberal government has, post-September 11, tried to put on a brave face by telling Canadians that everything was okay, that everything would be fine, we in the coalition have developed a comprehensive border security and management plan which would enhance the security and safety of Canadians across the country.

It is clear and it has been stated many times in this Chamber and elsewhere that we share the longest undefended border with the United States of America. It is also clear that at this time in world history the United States appears to be the target of much of the aggression felt by other corridors in the world.

Hundreds of billions of dollars in goods and services travel between our countries each year. Without a comprehensive border management plan which deals specifically with all aspects of border management, including ports, the safety of Canadians could be jeopardized and trade with our partners to the south would be significantly damaged.

I would suggest, given the preparations and the very vigorous attempts undertaken by our American cousins to get their ship in order with respect to security, that in the very near future they will be turning their attention to Canada and assessing our security and our ability to give guarantees that goods and services that come into our country will not leave them susceptible to some sort of attack.

I come from the east coast, where very often it is a common sight to see American warships in the port of Halifax or off the coast of the maritimes. That very fact, I would suggest, is something that has to be very prevalent in our preparations and in our attempts to secure our ports and our coastal borders. Similarly, there has been an increase in cruise line traffic wherein American citizens and citizens from all points come to Canada through our ports. Sadly, there have been past experiences and tragic events outside of Canada where American citizens have been targeted while outside the United States.

This is an alarming situation that has been brought forward, not just by members of the opposition, but in an extremely comprehensive report, published last week, from the Senate committee on national security and defence. I will quote from that Senate report in the section dealing specifically with ports. It states that in the committee's judgment “inadequate levels of security at entry ports to our country, deficiencies in intelligence capabilities and emergency preparedness capacity that has only recently begun to shift into gear, constitute a threat both to Canadians' economic and physical well-being”.

The report goes on, and I am referencing specifically the subject of organized crime that is active and operating in increasingly alarming rates at our ports, to state: “the security breaches encouraged by organized as well as petty criminals at Canada's ports are offered enhanced opportunities to would-be terrorists....Lax security at Canadian ports constitutes a threat to both the security and well-being of Canadians”.

This is extremely worrisome given the volatility of this age we are now living in. We have a very active and notorious threat of organized crime, and it is not just the traditional mafioso. We know that eastern block mafia and organized crime are becoming very active. On the west coast, in Vancouver, we see Asian gangs that are very active in the ports of that region of the country.

Of course it is not limited to our water points of entry. Airports and the border also play a big part in this overall strategy that must be undertaken and must be guarded very vigilantly by the government. In fact, this is why we are taking this opportunity to engage in this debate, to inform Canadians, to bring to the forefront of the House of Commons this issue of what challenges face the government and the country as a whole.

Sadly, these concerns and the concerns of Canadians who have taken the opportunity to question the government's policy seem to have fallen on deaf ears, partly, I would suggest, because of the structure that is in place surrounding democracy. Even the opportunity we have to pose questions is becoming more and more limited; witness the decision of the government to shut down further discussions on the budget yesterday, the seventy-fifth time in the regime of the government that it has used closure or time allocation. That is hardly consistent with a democratic institution.

I want to focus a little further on the issue of ports. In so doing I am referencing a very telling and, I would say, in some respects a foretelling document, which was published out of an international workshop dealing with airport and seaport police that occurred in March 1995. The report spoke of the privatization of police.

The Hon. René J. Marin said this with respect to municipal police taking over the role of ports police:

It is a reckless obsession with cost cutting and the disregard for the potential risk. Not insuring your personal property is a saving but we do not take the risk; it is simply not prudent.

He goes on to discuss the shortcomings in the ability of police, both municipal and RCMP, to do the very specialized job of ports police in this country.

I note my time is up. I hope that all members will engage in this debate and that we will receive some assurances from the government that greater prudence and effort will be taken to secure Canada's borders and ports of entry.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to call for a quorum count.

And the count having been taken:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

There is no quorum and the bells shall ring no longer than 15 minutes. Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

We now have a quorum. Resuming debate.

[Deborah Grey, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is pretty ironic, is it not, that we were just speaking about the relevance of parliament and every single opposition bench is empty, except for this coalition, which is sponsoring this debate today?

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hate to interrupt my colleague from Edmonton North, but I do believe before the quorum was called for that we were on questions and comments. Am I right about that?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I consulted with the clerks during quorum call and if quorum call is indeed made then the five minutes allotted to the member is gone with it.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Edmonton North.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member for Edmonton North is a long-standing member, and she should know better than to refer to the absence of members from the House. I believe she should withdraw the remarks she made earlier about members not being in the House.

[Deborah Grey, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was not speaking about a particular absence.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The hon. member for Repentigny has made his views known. We should not at any time refer to the absence or presence of any individual member in the House. When such remarks deal with a group, the matter is for the Chair to decide.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may have been referring to members of her own party or coalition, since they did not manage a quorum.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

All right. The score is now even.

[Deborah Grey, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am an English teacher. My math is not good but there are 19 in the coalition and we need 20 for quorum.

We were talking about the relevance of parliament. If anyone should ever talk about the relevance of parliament it might be this morning: We have wasted an hour and 22 minutes with opposition parties attacking other opposition parties and the government thinking this is all just jolly good fun. It is pathetic that someone would get into such minutiae, pettiness and small-mindedness when we have a country to run here and there are some pretty serious problems.

Talking about the relevance of parliament, let me welcome the members to the fact that this place is dysfunctional and we have not seen it any more clearly than we have seen it in the last 24 hours. We have seen the government in the last 24 hours with the seventy-fifth anniversary of time allocation and closure when we should be holding the government to account because, the last I knew, that is what the opposition is supposed to do. In fact, the official opposition is supposed to be ready, willing and able to form government should the government fall, but they just wander off, having a temper tantrum--

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I was just about to rise to warn the hon. member for Edmonton North to speak on the subject at hand, which is national security, and at the very same time the member for Prince George--Bulkley Valley rose on a point of order.

[Dick Harris, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was about to ask you to request that the member speak relevant to the motion. Thank you.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I am passing on the message. The hon. member for Edmonton North.