Debates of March 12th, 2002

Supply

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

Mr. Speaker, I heard the message. Let me read the motion for all members in the House:

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 these and other public policy issues.

Forgive me, but I thought the relevance of parliament that is addressed in the motion means the relevance of parliament and I am happy to speak about that. I know there will be some who will pay attention with rapt interest.

Let me talk a little more about the whole idea of the relevance of parliament in dealing with national security. We have watched it since September 11 when the government members sat frozen not knowing what to do. Should they go to New York or should they not? Should they recall parliament or should they not? I do not know why they would bother anyway because precious little happens here. The last 24 hours and the last hour and a half specifically show that sadly in spades.

Would they call a prayer meeting? Heavenly day no, that is a dangerous one for them. Would they have a memorial service? Yes, but only if it was safe. We saw the pathetic protocol, or lack thereof, for a memorial service after September 11.

Then there is the matter of legislation. The ports police is in bad shape. I was in Windsor yesterday. Five RCMP are trying to patrol the Windsor-Detroit corridor and watch people coming across the border in boats. How is parliament relevant to that? There should be 18 people on duty there. They are trying to get things together but it is not happening. There is not enough manpower. There is not enough money. There is not enough equipment. If the government is taking seriously the whole idea of border patrol and national security, it is sadly lacking.

When we think about how much better it could be pre or post-September 11, this place would function a little more relevantly. That is the sad topic I am addressing today. It is written in black and white in the motion. I am not sure how anyone could have a problem figuring it out. Parliament is not relevant.

An excellent Senate report was issued recently by both parties in the Senate Chamber. The Liberals along with the Tory senators and the independents agreed on all of the recommendations. I believe it was a unanimous report. Nonetheless it shows that there are Liberals somewhere who are willing to stand up and make recommendations and say there are some serious problems with our national security. The Senate has figured it out. The senators worked together on that.

Here in parliament we need to be able to work together. What we have seen today is tiny mindedness with capital letters among the opposition parties, not even the government. Something is wrong. We need to get that together. I do not care who has a little grudge. I do not care who thinks they need to make a point. I do not care who thinks they are going to win a war of attrition. But I am saying that as of tomorrow I will have been in this place for 13 years and I am not sure I have ever seen it sink to this level, and I have seen a few things here. I have not been here as long as some members, but I have been here longer than some and I am embarrassed.

I talked to someone last night who asked me what is an MP and what does an MP do. I tried to explain about legislation and about what our job is here in the highest court of the land. She said to me after a few minutes of conversation “And for this you get paid?” We get paid well to do our job here. I am embarrassed on the eve of my 13th anniversary to see this nonsense and absolute shenanigans that have gone on.

When are we going to get it right? When are we going to fight together rather than fight each other? This is not even about government and opposition members because we would think there would be some sparring between them, but if all of us are under the title and guise of opposition, whether its official or unofficial opposition, our job is to hold the government accountable. Shame on all of us, because this is absolutely ridiculous.

When I see some of the things that the senators have done, good for them because they work together. Government and opposition senators are working together trying to make something better. Their report was excellent.

We in the coalition came up with a democratic task force report, which as far as I understand because of my political history in this place, is something that former colleagues believe in and support. There is not one of them who would not agree with free votes and having House of Commons committees a little more effective. In the last couple of weeks we have seen that to be a

Gong Show.

Let me address the relationship between parliament and the courts. I ask my former colleagues, how long have we talked about that? How long have we been in agreement about that? How long have we said that parliament needs to tell the courts that it makes the legislation and the courts interpret it? We have agreed on that for many years.

Is there one among those members over there who will stand up and say they do not agree with Senate reform? We agree on this.

Enough is enough. We need to agree on what is going to be better for this country, not what is going to be better for my political career or someone else's political career. That better be pretty low on the totem pole.

We need to put all this nonsense and petty mindedness aside and work together with the government and with other opposition members. We will work with anyone who is going to make this country better. Shame on any of the 301 members in the House who think that getting re-elected or their political career is bigger and better than what is better for Canadians. Shame on all of us if we fall to that level.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Edmonton North has touched on some important points.

We have long called for members to work together in this place. If we as opposition members can find agreement on things to hold the government accountable, it is good for the country. It is also good for the country to have opposition members working with government members.

My colleague from Edmonton North is an experienced member. As she said, she has been here almost 13 years. It is her anniversary tomorrow. I wonder if she would reflect a bit more on the aspect of her speech where she described the need for people to come together, not only as opposition members to keep the government accountable on this important national security issue which we raised today, but on other matters as well. Could she expand on that aspect?

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

Mr. Speaker, members spend lots of time on airplanes. We spend a lot of time away from our families. We spend a lot of time in this place and it is not working. It is not working as well as it could. I think everyone on either side of the House would agree with me on that.

There are Liberal backbenchers here in the House. There are also Liberals from Windsor. I mentioned the frustrations of the people in Windsor because of the water. It is unbelievable. People can just come ashore. There are Liberals who are frustrated about that but they are tied in chains, figuratively speaking, because they cannot speak out.

We saw what happened a couple of weeks ago in committees. Someone who had been an excellent parliamentary secretary and would have been a very effective committee chair was bunted, drop kicked out of there because of small minded, petty politics. The leadership race is not even close to happening for goodness sake. When we see that kind of nonsense going on and the lobbying, manipulating and scheming, where is the betterment of all of us here in parliament?

It is easy to rant and toss a comment off, but what is relevant is that this place is irrelevant. That is the problem.

Look at someone with a grudge who will show somebody by letting someone else know. When somebody says something in the sacred place of a caucus room and then tells the media gallery about it, there is the relevance. To try and disguise that as altruistic does not fly.

Sooner or later we had better learn some of those painful lessons. There will be more painful ones ahead if we do not pay attention.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate the member on her 13 years of service.

It was totally unfair to all members of the House who come here to work diligently when she said that nothing happened. There were 100,000 Canadians on the lawn of Parliament Hill after September 11. There was prayer breakfast in the West Block. The room was packed with all members from the House praying together.

It is shameful, with her experience, the holier than thou attitude that she portrayed with the cacophony that she expressed today. I was saddened to hear her degrading it. She should be ashamed of the negative message she is putting out to Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would love to address that with the member, but I certainly will address it to the others. I trust he will watch it on TV.

I know there was a powerful memorial service on Parliament Hill. I could not get to it because I could not get on a plane. I live several thousand miles away. I watched it on TV. It was powerful. I was proud of that, because so many Canadians came out. However they were told they could not even mention the name of God. People were groping and trying to come to grips spiritually with that huge event which was cataclysmic.

He talked about an event in the West Block, and I appreciate that too. I know that people were moved by that and they had a desire to call out. We had a prayer service in East Block and it was pretty small, but we did what we could do.

I thank the member for bringing that forward. I thank the Canadians who came out but they wanted to do more and were restrained.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to enter the debate on national security which remains a key concern for all Canadians I believe. I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Scarborough--Rouge River.

On behalf of the solicitor general, I assure you, Mr. Speaker, and all members of parliament that national security and public safety continue to be the number one priority and the top priority for the Government of Canada.

The Solicitor General of Canada has a leadership role within the Government of Canada for protecting Canadians and helping them to maintain a peaceful and safe society.

Many other ministers of the government, including departments and agencies, are also key partners in this very important area in the fight against terrorism, including my hon. colleagues from justice, CCRA, CIC, DFAIT, national defence, Transport Canada and Health Canada. We all work closely with our federal partners on a daily basis through a variety of informal and formal meetings to ensure that the government's overall public safety strategy is co-ordinated and effective.

The ad hoc ministers' committee on public security and anti-terrorism as well as the deputy ministers' committee on public safety are prime examples of interdepartmental co-ordination.

The portfolio of the Solicitor General of Canada also co-operates with federal, provincial and territorial partners in a number of ways to share information, consult on major initiatives and to reach consensus on proposed criminal justice reforms. These include, for example, ministers responsible for justice, deputy ministers responsible for justice, co-ordinating committees of senior officials and several subcommittees and working groups to examine specific policy issues.

In particular, a new federal-provincial-territorial deputies committee has just been formed to ensure co-ordination among all jurisdictions in their approach to anti-terrorism and public safety issues.

Strong partnerships with stakeholders is vital to the work of the Solicitor General of Canada. We encourage and actively support co-operation with our non-governmental partners, including provincial and municipal police forces, and emergency firstline responders through consultation, information sharing, exchange of expertise and knowledge, training and the provision of resources.

It goes without saying that since September 11 counterterrorism is a top priority for police and security agencies the world over. It is a top priority here at home too for the RCMP, for CSIS and for law enforcement officials across Canada.

The primary role of the Government of Canada is to lead this fight against terrorism at national and international levels. The government is doing so through new legislation and several important initiatives announced in the last two federal budgets.

Since the year 2000, the Government of Canada has dedicated a total of $9.5 billion to public safety and national security, including $7.7 billion in the December 2001 budget. The comprehensive set of measures outlined in budget 2001 are designed to keep Canada safe, keep terrorists out and keep our borders open. To this end, it includes major investments to equip and deploy more intelligence and frontline investigative personnel, improve co-ordination among law enforcement, intelligence and national security agencies, and to boost marine security and safety to the tune of $1.6 million. It also includes improving the screening of immigrants, refugee claimants and visitors to the tune of $1 billion; creating a new air security organization, assigning armed undercover police officers on Canadian aircraft, purchasing explosive detection equipment and enhancing policing to the tune of $2.2 billion; and finally, enhancing border security and improving the infrastructure that supports major border crossings to ensure the legitimate flow of people and goods, which is so important to our economy, to the tune of $1.2 billion.

Furthermore, under Canada's anti-terrorism plan, key federal agencies responsible for public security, such as the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, will receive substantial new funding to enhance their counterterrorism capacity and priorities.

CSIS will receive an additional $334 million over five years which will be used to boost its frontline security intelligence capacity. The RCMP will receive an additional $576 million which will bring new technology on line and put more officers to work on national security matters.

Under Canada's anti-terrorism plan, specific federal support for provinces, territories and municipalities include the establishment of new integrated national security enforcement teams, INSETs, and increased integrated border enforcement teams, IBETs, by the RCMP with provision for the salaries of INSET members seconded from other jurisdictions.

These are all important measures and, while the focus is on counterterrorism, initiatives undertaken on this front have had ripple effects that will benefit organized crime investigations, community policing and policing and law enforcement in general. What these measures do is establish a framework to ensure a high level of public security and safety for Canadians wherever they live in a national security framework.

Federal anti-terrorism initiatives will clearly strengthen the criminal justice system on a national basis. All jurisdictions will benefit from the resulting tools, expertise, new or expanded programs and infrastructure. These benefits will continue over a long period of time.

As a result of the events that took place on September 11, the Government of Canada and the U.S. administration have been more attentive than ever in ensuring security and safety at our joint border. Both countries have formally agreed to co-operate on border security and regional migration issues and have signed a smart border declaration which includes a 30 point action plan to ensure a safe, secure and efficient border.

The goal is to facilitate the movement of legitimate goods and people while preventing terrorists and undesirable individuals from entering Canada or the United States.

The Government of Canada has long realized that the fight against organized crime is not a task it can take on alone. Since the adoption of the joint statement on organized crime in 1998, we have been working very closely with our provincial and territorial counterparts to address this problem.

The national agenda to combat organized crime identifies a series of new legislative initiatives to enhance the investigation and prosecution of organized crime. Bill C-24 was a good first step and an important first step.

The police community told policymakers there was a need to improve legislation and that is exactly what happened and what we did. Bill C-24 will assist in addressing serious problems like biker gangs and other forms of serious crime.

We all know that criminals are making full use of technological advances to facilitate and provide leverage for their crimes. In order to respond effectively, we need to capitalize on the new technological tools available to us.

An excellent example of this is the Canada Public Safety Information Network which is designed to link criminal justice agencies across Canada to allow for better detection and prosecution of offenders. In October 2001, the Solicitor General of Canada announced that $4.9 million in new money would be dedicated in part to enhancing this program.

Furthermore, encryption technology is becoming cheaper, stronger, widely available and easy to use. Criminals and terrorists increasingly use some form of encryption or password protection to secure their communications. That is why the Department of the Solicitor General has implemented an action plan to provide technical solutions and to conduct a comprehensive legislative review.

Here, as with organized crime, the challenge is for our laws to keep pace with the changing face of technology and crime.

The Government of Canada does not take public safety and national security for granted. As I have just outlined, we have introduced numerous initiatives designed to enhance both national security and public safety.

Parliament and parliamentary committees continue to play a vigorous role in this area. We have only to point to parliament's work on Bill C-36, Bill C-24, Bill C-11 and continuing debate regarding Bill C-42 and Bill S-23.

I look forward to the continued input of all parliamentarians as we work together in this very important area. I will conclude by saying that public security and public safety remain a top priority. As a government, along with all Canadians, we need to work in this very important area to ensure that at the end of the day we secure a safe and good place for Canadians wherever they live in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the canned rhetoric I was glad when he deviated just long enough at the end to say that there might be more that could be done.

Does the parliamentary secretary endorse some of the decisions that he did not mention in the notes prepared by the department? Does he endorse the $200 million that were taken out of the RCMP budget since his government came to office in 1993? Does he endorse the decision to cancel the helicopter program at a cost of over $500 million and countless more millions in jobs and technology that could have come from that decision leaving our borders, marine patrol capabilities and armed forces extremely exposed.

I would also like to know whether he endorses some of the other ludicrous decisions his government has taken, including the registration of guns at a cost of over $700 million. If that money had been given to frontline policing, it could have gone to far greater lengths to help combat all sorts of crime.

Does he endorse his government's decision to disband the ports police which were a specialized police force acting as a deterrent at ports in Canada, such as in Vancouver, Montreal and Halifax? Does he endorse those government decisions and can he justify what his government has done?

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to ports police, we take port security very seriously and have worked with local agencies to ensure that it is kept at a pace that is relevant for activities at those areas. The RCMP and customs people are still involved when it comes to certain crimes. I am convinced that we have a good system in place.

On the other matters that the hon. member raised, I would point out that it was his government back in 1993 that left us in a financial wasteland with a $42 billion deficit and a huge debt that was accumulated as a result of the kind of policies those Conservative people wreaked on the country.

For him to talk along those lines now is just ludicrous. We as a government put in place the mechanisms to get the country back on its feet. We are seeing now that we are on solid footing. What we now need to do is ensure that our streets, communities and neighbourhoods are safe, and that is precisely what we are doing.

We as a government continue to work effectively in the best interests of all Canadians, not to bankrupt as the Tories tried to do but to make sure that we have in place the kinds of tools and resources that police wherever they exist in the country can be proud of, and that is exactly what we are doing.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do feel compelled to at least reply to the reference made to the debt that was left. The hon. member refers to the $42 billion deficit when his government took office. Will he show some intellectual honesty for the first time on the government side and accept the fact that it was a $38 billion--

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Before I give the floor to the hon. member, I ask members to be judicious with the choice of their words; intellectual honesty.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if I had been one of the Conservatives I too would be very sensitive about the issue because what remains is a terrible legacy left by the Mulroney government in terms of literally bankrupting our great country.

They should be sensitive to the fact that they almost put the country into the ground. What we did as a government was resurrect Canada and put it on solid footing with a great foundation made in a way consistent with the great values of the country.

I cannot believe that the member would have the gall to actually bring this kind of thing up because all it does is serve to remind Canadians of the disaster of Mr. Mulroney and the Conservative government.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to try to nudge the debate a little closer to the topic. The mover of the motion proposed the motion and we seem to be dealing with all kinds of different topics such as the way the deficit was 5, 10, 15 and 20 years ago, firearms legislation and helicopter purchases.

I remind colleagues, and perhaps the mover of the motion, that the subject is national security generally. The opposition has moved the motion so inevitably it will be rhetorical. Inevitably it will be political and sometimes wilfully blind to some of the facts. However that is the way we operate around here. Our job is to try to contribute things to the debate that will keep us on topic.

National security is very much a challenge of responding to and managing risk. It is pretty clear to everyone that the perceived risk pre-September 11 is different from the risk we see now. Most of the risk we have had to encounter was risk targeted at our American neighbours.

Pre-September 11 these risks did not seem to be targeted directly at Canada, but these days national security is an international item. It has an international dynamic. It is not just domestic. We must work with our partners internationally to deal with managing the risk. When one of our international partners is at risk our legislation and our policy are to assume that we also are at risk and will collaborate with them.

The December 12 announcement of a 30 point action plan by this government and by the government of the U.S.A. reflects the fact that security in North America is pretty much pooled together. That 30 point action plan was not accomplished overnight. It is a wish list that will span out over several years. The 30 point plan became a much shorter 8 point plan, I think it was, by March 8 when our minister met with his U.S. counterpart, Mr. Ridge.

Many things are going on and one of the challenges of responding to security threats is that the actual response by government is not made public necessarily at the time the response is taken. One element of dealing with security is that its elements are not usually made public, at least in an aggressive, press release kind of way.

The March 8 announcement included improvements to our Canada-U.S. border screening operations and a joint program to address the risk of security breaches involving shipping container traffic at our seaports. These joint teams will now be developing action plans for Canadian and U.S. ports across the northern tier of the U.S. or the southern tier of Canada.

They will find problems. They know what they are. The member opposite who moved the motion has referred to the problem of organized crime in more than one of our seaports. It is a fact that police have told us at committees of the House and apparently of the Senate that we do not control container traffic. It is controlled by workers at the ports. Statistically speaking approximately half the workers in some of those ports have criminal records, which does not mean they are not following the rules but it does raise concerns. I for one have concluded that we do not control sufficiently our container traffic coming into our ports. I will not say which one.

We have a serious problem which can only be addressed by government. What we have heard publicly so far from the people who manage the seaports is not accurate. I assume some of us in this place will be engaged in further debate on that.

One of the problems with security matters is that they often get siloed into different subject and ministry areas. The difference among health, policing, customs and military security creates a great challenge for modern government.

We have tried to address it by placing one minister at the cabinet table with an ad hoc committee of relevant ministers. The Americans have tried a different route by using a non-cabinet minister to try to bring things together. There were challenges on both sides of the border. Both sides are working with these challenges and have attempted perhaps to low ball the turf wars that occur between different agencies within government.

Our problems are analogous to the kinds of problems in that regard of our American neighbours. Our response to terrorism includes two pieces of legislation: one passed by the House, Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism bill, and Bill C-42 which is before the House. It will certainly have more debate here. Those are good faith strong attempts, strong responses by the government to deal with legislative weaknesses of which we perhaps were not aware before September 11. The same has happened in many other countries around the world as we try to remediate our domestic legislation to respond to the very real threats out there.

The government reconstituted the national security subcommittee of the justice committee. The phone calls went out within days after September 11. Members of the House will be working on that committee in an attempt to provide focus for the House on the envelope of national security, which I have already said is somewhat segmented, inevitably so, between different ministries and different agencies within government.

In the motion today is what I regard as a silly throwaway comment asking the government to try to make parliament more relevant. It is not the job of the government to make parliament more relevant. It is the job of parliamentarians. Let us please stop asking government, which is several hundred thousand people strong working outside the House, to try to make the House more relevant. This is our job. Anyone in the House who asks some nameless, faceless person in government to help us make the House more relevant is whistling, dreaming.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Jean Chrétien.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

The member opposite of many years experience is saying it is the Prime Minister's job. No, it is the job of the member opposite. The member opposite is fully capable of providing leadership if he would just get off his duff and provide it instead of asking the Prime Minister to do his job. The Prime Minister is very busy.

In terms of national security, we called our last budget in December a security budget and it is a security budget. As was pointed out by the parliamentary secretary, $7.5 billion were dedicated to national security items, all siloed with a billion here and a half billion there for many different functions in responding to the threat.

The list has already been mentioned but I will just mention air security measures involving modifications to aircraft, air marshals on aircraft, $1.6 billion to military security, $2.2 billion in the air travel envelope, and $1 billion to improve screening of persons entering Canada at seaports or airports whether they run, walk, fly or parachute. This is a new priority for us.

We follow a common agenda. I should point out, as everyone knows, someone dropping into North America for a day, a week or a year is dropping into North America. Our American neighbours care who shows up here and we care who shows up there.

A lot is going on. Many taxpayer dollars are being spent. I thank the member opposite for allowing us to bring focus on those expenditures and these policies.

[Chuck Strahl, Canadian Alliance, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will comment a bit on the hon. member's speech, especially when he says that all we have to do is stand and be counted and parliament will be turned on its ear, that all we have to do as parliamentarians is stand and say the magic word and things will change.

If we had just stood I suppose the government would not have brought in time allocation and closure on debate 75 times. I suppose, to use the member's words, we could fix the committee structure by simply standing and saying that we wish we could have a proper chair of committees without interference by the government.

I would like to question him on that subject since he raised it. Last spring I put forward proposals called “Building Trust”, a dozen specific proposals on helping parliament fix itself. We put together this year a proposal about reforming the entire parliamentary system, including things like estimates, committees, how we deal with things, endorsing all party committees, reports on how we deal with budget allocations, estimates and so on.

What more exactly does he think we could do? It needs fixing but we cannot fix it from here. We need help from the leadership group on that side of the House or enough backbenchers with enough spine to help us. We are putting forward the proposals. We do not have the votes to carry them.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Before I give the floor to the hon. member for Scarborough--Rouge River, I ask members to make an effort to talk about national security at some point in time.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, you took the words right out of my mouth. Members opposite are trying to turn this debate into something other than the subject of the motion. Now we are talking about parliamentary reform.

I accept that the member opposite has made contributions to this field. I have tried to do the same as have other members on this side and that side. It is an ongoing agenda. We have been renovating the rules of the House of Commons ever since it began in 1867. It is an ongoing task.

I am not saying we cannot make the place better but changes do not happen overnight. We made rule changes only about a year ago and those rule changes are not doing too badly. There is a lot more that can be done. I will be publishing something within days on the same subject.

I will not moan and groan about the failure to accept my changes. There is a process. We should all be involved. I just urge members, if we are to have a debate about national security issues, to please stay on topic. The subject of debate today is not parliamentary reform; it is national security.

[Chuck Strahl, Canadian Alliance, Fraser Valley, BC]

You raised it.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member says I raised it. I raised it because I was responding to something that was raised across the way. I will just close there. There may be some more comments on something relevant.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Again I ask members to deal with national security. It seems that a trend has been set and that we cannot deviate from it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I draw the attention of the Chair and members present to the fact that the latter part of the votable motion calls upon the government to reassert parliament's relevance in addressing these and other public policy matters. I would suggest that very much includes and encompasses the subject matter of parliamentary reform.

I want to follow the instructions of the Chair and I want to commend the member for Scarborough--Rouge River because I think he is a very talented and very gifted parliamentarian who has made a significant contribution to this place. I acknowledge his commitment not only to democratic reform but to security issues in particular, something he has taken a very sincere and very concerted effort to pursue.

I draw him back to some of the comments he referred to in the Senate report, in particular those surrounding the concerns expressed by the Senate over the number of containers which come into the country and the number of containers which are actually checked. I believe those statistics reveal that in Halifax, Vancouver and Montreal, the major ports of entry, they were somewhere between 1% and 3%.

There is an obvious problem that needs to be addressed with greater equipment. There is a problem that needs to be addressed with those doing the checking. The member referred to the disproportionate number of checkers and employees in the ports that have criminal records. That is a huge concern. I would also add the fact that the port authority is not the one that is doing the checking. In many cases it is private companies that hire security firms.

Would he not agree that we have to make a more concentrated effort either to improve the ability of current municipal police and the RCMP to address the situation or perhaps revisit the specialized role of the port authority or port police?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

There is no time left in questions and comments. With the indulgence of the Chair I will allow the hon. member for Scarborough--Rouge River a minute to respond.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I happen to agree fully with the member opposite that the container shipping envelope is out of control. Police and authorities have made that clear. They cannot ensure containers they see coming in on ships get to them for inspection because the crime groups in control of the ports are able to re-number and re-label the containers and do a bait and switch. It is out of control.

I know about the problem, the member opposite knows about it, other members know about it and the government knows about it. I am hopeful that with the joint action of the U.S. and Canada that was announced recently we will quickly come to grips with it.

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Langley--Abbotsford.

I again welcome the opportunity to rise and partake in the debate about national security. It is a relevant debate although what we are seeing here today perhaps diminishes the fact that we need a debate on national security.

When we in the Canadian Alliance Party look at some of what we want to draw out today we understand even more that it is not over. National security is not something we are finished with. We are still seeing an ongoing threat to national security.

I will speak today to one of the specific concerns we have in our party. The hon. member for Langley--Abbotsford will speak to another specific concern. Each member of the Canadian Alliance will speak to a specific national security concern.

As we all know, yesterday marked the six month anniversary of the September 11 attack on America. It is quite fair to say it is a day that will never be forgotten. I did not get an opportunity yesterday on the anniversary date to again express my sincere condolences to all families who lost loved ones in the twin tower attacks, loved ones who included citizens of the United States, Canada and other countries. I do so again today. They are still in our thoughts and in our prayers.

I take the opportunity to urge the government to immediately commemorate the lost lives of September 11, 2001 as recommended yesterday by my colleague from Medicine Hat.

This past weekend a senior Canadian intelligence agent warned that dozens of Islamic militants already in Canada could well be planning acts of terror against Canadians on our own soil. This was not shortly after September 11. This was last weekend. Michael Kelly with the counterterrorism branch of CSIS told symposium delegates at the Royal Military College that “The threat is real, it is immediate, it is here”.

For so long we have thought Canada was immune to attacks like the one we saw in the United States. Although we recognized that terrorist organizations were using our country to plot or stage attacks against our neighbours we felt we were immune to such attacks. We have heard it again here today.

Canada has long been thought of, especially by radicals, as a comfortable spot to forge documents, make travel arrangements, fundraise, recruit, and engage in other activities to support terrorist networks abroad. Since the attack on America a lot of evidence has been brought forward to substantiate these suspicions. However we have never thought we could be a hard target. We have never considered that an attack could be made on us. As mentioned by the CSIS individual over the past weekend, the tide is changing.

According to the security expert, Israel and the United States which are the principal symbols of anti-west hatred will become less available to terrorists as they implement more stringent regulations and precautions. As Canada becomes more involved in the war against terror there will be a considerable threat to Canada and its citizens. Much more must therefore be done to protect the lives and liberty of Canadians including taking the threat of biological warfare more seriously.

In a speech I gave on September 18 last year I spoke about the threat of anthrax. I said that despite the warnings of 1998 the government had done nothing to prepare us against potential biological or chemical attacks.

A number of years ago the United States was threatened by the potential of Iraq smuggling the deadly anthrax bacteria into the country. It conducted a series of drills to work out how it might respond as a nation. Donald Henderson of John Hopkins University in Baltimore, who led the successful international effort to eradicate smallpox, concluded that the United States was ill prepared to deal with this type of attack. Henderson recommended the U.S. government stockpile drugs and vaccines, develop and distribute rapid tests for agents used in biological weapons, and come up with effective ways to isolate infected people.

Despite the warnings and recommendations of the mid-1990s and the inglorious long past of chemical warfare, neither the United States nor Canada took the threat seriously.

We can learn from history. Ancient Greek city states overwhelmed opponents in the past with noxious fumes of smoldering pitch and sulphur. Chinese warriors wafted arsenic laced smokescreens against their foes. Plague soaked corpses were tossed into enemy fortresses during the Middle Ages.

On April 22, 1915 German troops twisted open the valves of 5,000 cannisters of chlorine gas at Ypres, Belgium. Massive green clouds made their way toward the allied forces. Within minutes thousands of panicked victims died. British forces retaliated with mustard gas, phosphine gas and other poisons. The total casualties on all sides in World War I are estimated to be 1.3 million.

Modern chemical warfare did not just drift onto the scene. Chemical and biological weapons have long been seen as efficient means with which to destroy the enemy. Yet we are not prepared. Some 100 kilograms of anthrax spores administered by a crop duster or light plane flying over any Canadian city could deliver a fatal dose to over three million people in a very short period.

Canada knows this simple fact because Canadian research led to the development of anthrax as a biological weapon. A deadly bacteria, anthrax was mass produced on Grosse Ile. It was the first such germ warfare station among the western nations. We became the major supplier of anthrax to the British military during World War II.

Canadians have been reluctant to admit we were pioneers or innovators in German chemical warfare. If we were to ask my hon. colleague across the way from Ancaster--Dundas--Flamborough--Aldershot, the author of the 1989 book Deadly Allies: Canada's Secret War 1937-1947 , he could attest to this.

However prior to September 11 and despite our extensive knowledge and involvement with this deadly type of warfare we were not prepared to deal with it until a number of anthrax scares, a couple of which resulted in death in the United States. We are only now taking the threat of biological warfare seriously. Perhaps the question should be posed: Are we taking it seriously?

An Ottawa Citizen article by Carol Harrington in early February said the government was finally preparing the country to respond to terrorist attacks including biological and chemical attacks. My office has tried to confirm the accuracy of Ms. Harrington's article but to date the Department of National Defence has failed to confirm it.

My offices on the Hill and in Crowfoot have made numerous attempts to get information about the approval of $12 million for the Defence Research Establishment in Suffield to erect several buildings where police, firefighters and medical personnel would learn in classrooms and in the field about terrorist attacks and, more specifically, biological and chemical warfare. This is extremely important to me because Suffield is next to my riding. I have endeavoured to learn as much as I can because individuals from councils have come to me requesting information about what is happening in Suffield.

For the Citizen article Ms. Harrington interviewed John Leggat, assistant deputy minister of science and technology in the Department of National Defence who said “It will be up to municipalities to identify key people and their teams who would need this kind of training”.

This would appear to be a directive from the government. However it is like our national sex offender registry. The government has accepted it will do it but never gets around to it. Suffield was chosen for the site because it is a Canadian centre of expertise in chemical and biological weapons. Construction is supposed to start next year.

Ms. Harrington reports in the Citizen article that “The centre will also serve as a resource library for scientists to advise emergency crews who are first on the scene of a biological, chemical or radiological attack”.

Currently Canada has only one military response team trained for those types of attacks and it is based here at CFB Borden in Ontario. However it takes eight hours for the military to leave the base or respond to an attack. That means it could take 24 hours for such a group to arrive if there was an attack in British Columbia.

Again, we have yet to confirm through the government the building of these counterterrorism centres but we certainly do support it. This is the party, the Canadian Alliance, that two days after we reconvened the House, recognized the need for anti-terrorism legislation and we brought forward the supply day motion to come up with anti-terrorist legislation.

We implore the government to consider more training facilities, more national security, putting the dollars that are needed back into the security forces that the Canadian public want and demand.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's remarks with interest. I know he has a specific interest as well in domestic policing.

We know that currently the Canadian Police Association and the Ontario Police Association are on the Hill participating in their annual lobby day. One of their great concerns, as is a concern of my friend, is that the Canadian government, the current Liberal administration, is not doing enough to protect Canadian citizens after the fact, after police have done their good work, apprehended a criminal, the criminal has had the benefit of due process and has been incarcerated. There is a real concern on the part of the police that we do more to ensure that we take every precaution before releasing an individual back on the street.

I would also like to ask him about his personal position and his party's position with regard to the disbanding of the ports police by the Liberal government in 1997. The specialized service provided by ports police looked at every individual case with a view to prevention as opposed to simply apprehending, as is often the case unfortunately with federal, provincial and municipal police. They tend to be more reactive as opposed to putting the emphasis on being preventive. That is no ill-reflection on them. It is merely the reality and the limitations placed on them by resources, which is another element of this equation. They have been forced to do more with less because of government cutbacks. The priority that municipal, provincial and federal police forces put on the ports is an additional responsibility, that is it is an add-on to what they are currently encumbered and mandated to respond to.

Would my friend mind responding to that?