Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We've suggested to change two clauses here related to the issues of national security and the port authority itself.
The first is to request that the Minister of Public Safety have the opportunity to have a security audit at the ports. To support this, we've looked at different ports in the United States and their suggestions. As well, there are the issues over development, again, with third party arrangements, and hence the second proposed subsection is to call for a relationship with the Investment Canada Act.
The Government of Canada has already issued that they are going to clarify rules on foreign investment in this particular act. What we're suggesting with these two amendments is, first, that once again the Minister of Public Safety has the opportunity to examine security. Since we have had the ports basically dismantle their policing operations, and there's no standardization of that, you have several different ports that have different agreements with local security branches as well as a different hiring of municipal police officers and so forth. This would provide the opportunity for the Minister of Public Safety to at least have an opportunity to analyse the different ports and determine whether or not they are sufficient as security measures.
We know from evidence that's presented through other committees as well as in the general public and also from CBSA that there's actually a lesser degree of scrutiny of some of the actual containers and cargo coming into our ports. That has repercussions when it comes to everything from public safety, be it merchandise, etc.
Just last night there was another meeting of the all-party intellectual property committee, where we were discussing this very issue with the Chamber of Commerce as well as with the Manufacturers & Exporters. There was concern over the fact that different types of merchandise are getting into Canadian ports without the proper scrutiny. CBSA admittedly does not have the resources right now to be able to deal with those issues.
Having the minister able to get in and provide that audit is important, because what it does is take away some of the concerns and provide a degree of analysis that is necessary, especially given the scrutiny we're getting with the United States. We do know we're going to see a continued thickening of the border if we do not have some of our port operations adjusted appropriately to meet some of the needs of security that are coming in. Once again, we believe the Minister of Public Safety has the proper tools to be able to provide that oversight, to provide that audit, and then to provide suggestions as to how to fix that.
Secondly, to conclude with the Investment Canada Act, the reason that clause is in there—and there's nothing stopping us from adding this in the bill today, even though the government is examining it now—is that we've seen non-democratic governments actually purchase Canadian companies. In the United States recently we've seen the situation with their ports and purchasing, with the issue over Dubai, and we've seen them wrestle with this issue.
Hence, having this oversight would give some comfort, especially when we have issues surrounding national security. It's an important opportunity that gives the government the tools to actually have part of that oversight administered through the House of Commons.