Debates of March 12th, 2002

Point of Order

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

Madam Speaker, I remember my hon. friend making a speech in the House against the idea of a flat or single rate tax that was advocated by the Alliance, previously the Reform Party, prior to the last election campaign. Is this tax of $24 a trip not like a single rate or flat tax? Is he not now supporting something he actually spoke against prior to the last election campaign?

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

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.

[Betty Hinton, Canadian Alliance, Kamloops, Thompson And Highland Valleys, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am not certain who the member across the way has been talking to. Certainly no one in my riding supports adding $24 onto an airline ticket. In my riding we are asking why the government is putting the cost of security onto the public.

The idea behind travel is to get us from one end of the country to the other and to make us know each other better. When a $24 tax, and that what it is, a tax, is added on top of this, it is unfair. If we made it a reasonable tax there would be more money than could possibly be needed for this in the first place. The government should take responsibility for the security of the air and not put that on the people who are travelling. If part of it has to be put on then it should be a reasonable amount of money.

I listened to the hon. member across the way say that we wanted Canada to go to war. We on this side of the House did not want Canada to go to war. We wanted to honour our NATO agreement and help our neighbours. When we did send our troops to Afghanistan we wanted to make certain that they were there equipped, not painting sheets so that they would be able to hide, and not one guy having a gun and other guy having the bullets. We wanted them equipped. What is wrong with sending an army and a navy that is equipped? Could the hon. member explain that to me because I do not understand it?

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

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.

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, as you probably know already, I will be sharing my time with the member for Berthier—Montcalm. I rise today on this opposition day of the Progressive Conservative/Democratic Representative Coalition whose motion deals in part with national security.

At the outset, I would like to say that in spite of the fact that the last part of the motion is of some interest since it calls for greater involvement of parliament, the Bloc Quebecois will not support the motion.

We are not questioning the appropriateness of looking at the need to put in place new measures to improve and enhance public safety.

Our message to all those who were expecting to tear a strip off the Bloc for its position on national security is that, contrary to what the Prime Minister dared claim before the House not so long ago, the fact that the Bloc is refusing to give free rein to the Liberal government on defence and national security issues does not mean that we are taking the side of terrorists nor that we are more concerned about their fate than about the protection of honest citizens. To claim such a thing is pure demagoguery.

First of all, either I do not quite understand the scope of the motion before us or my Coalition colleagues were asleep last fall. As it stands now, their motion states that the House of Commons should condemn the government for its failure to implement a national security policy.

I will refer to Bill C-42, the Public Safety Act, and to Bill C-36, which became the Anti-terrorism Act. I hope this will juggle their memory.

I am willing to believe that, with regard to this last bill, the opportunity for the Coalition to speak on the topic was substantially limited by the passing of a time allocation motion. However, I find it rather astonishing that they managed to forget the theme which captured the attention of parliamentarians, the media and the population as a whole from September to December.

Moreover, the Anti-terrorism Act was, in terms of its impact on individual rights and freedoms, the most significant piece of legislation on any legislative agenda since the notorious and now infamous War Measures Act, from which Quebec suffered the abuse in October 1970.

We must be careful and not agree too quickly with the coalition when it states that the government has not implemented a public security policy. I think it is appropriate, indeed necessary, to put things into perspective.

First of all, let me go over some of the security measures included in Bill C-42, which is still before the House at second reading.

First, the bill authorizes ministers and delegated officers to make security measures and interim orders in order to respond to security threats.

Second, it implements the Inter-American Convention against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunitions, Explosives, and Other Related Materials.

Third, it provides for better control over the export and transfer of technology.

Fourth, it allows a senior immigration officer to suspend the consideration of a refugee claim.

It also creates military security zones.

Furthermore, it extends the powers of the National Energy Board to include matters relating to the security of pipelines and international power lines.

Finally, it authorizes the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to disclose information to the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada.

Now, in the Anti-terrorism Act, the government took the following measures.

First, it created a whole series of offences related to terrorism.

Second, it created new offences to counter intelligence gathering activities, including the unauthorized communication of special operational information.

Third, the rules of evidence were changed so as to allow the non-disclosure of evidence that could be prejudicial to national defence or to national security.

Then there is the possibility of intercepting communications without prior judicial authorization. Lastly, the Minister of Justice has the discretionary power to exempt information from the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act.

Obviously, these measures were not taken under a national security policy, but the fact remains that these are 12 major measures, some of which went so far that we had to vote against the Anti-terrorism Act and we will have to do the same for Bill C-42. Moreover, there is a most important point that needs to be mentioned. Members should not forget that, in the most recent budget, which was tabled in December of last year, security got the lion's share with $7.7 billion over five years.

The fundamental question we must ask ourselves is not whether the government should have taken or should be taking these security measures under a comprehensive, integrated, national policy or something like that. In fact, what is important is not the colour of the envelope but its content.

Therefore, we must ask ourselves if the government is showing initiative and if it is taking the appropriate measures. The answer to both these questions seems obvious to me. It is no in both cases.

With regard to the level of initiative shown by the government, one cannot escape the fact that this government is constantly in reactive mode. Seeing how it runs the country on a piecemeal basis, one does not have to look any further to find the reasons why the Americans are dictating the approach we should be taking with regard to security.

The Liberals have no idea what the term “proactive” means. The recent events that unfolded just confirmed what we already knew.

Furthermore, we have denounced the relevance of these measures on countless occasions throughout the legislative process involving Bills C-36 and C-42. We repeat this again today: the measures proposed by the government do not establish a fair balance between security and freedoms.

Some will say that, contrary to what we fear, Canada has not become a police state. However, even if the debate remains purely in the realm of the theoretical, the problem lies not in the fact that there has not yet been any abuses of wiretapping or any arbitrary arrests. The problem is that this possibility exists within the text of the bill. Also, it is helpful to remember that since Bill C-36 was passed, the crisis has subsided to a large extent and these measures have yet to be put to the test. The situation could be quite different if there were another crisis.

As well, if the measures proposed were as effective as the government claims, how can it explain the backlog at the borders and the fact that drug imports have not diminished since Operation Printemps 2001 and the tightening of border security since September 11?

In its February 2002 report entitled “Canadian Security and Military Preparedness”, the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence examined the most vulnerable elements that the terrorists could make use of. The committee heard a wide range of witnesses including representatives of organizations responsible for the various aspects of security in the Montreal-Dorval and Vancouver international airports and in the maritime ports of Halifax, Vancouver and Montreal. In so doing the committee had the opportunity of examining the capabilities and security plans of these organizations. Moreover, the committee based its discussions and conclusions on the following premises:

1. The efficient use of security intelligence can help reduce the risks to society.

2. The limited resources available force us to discriminate in favour of cooperation both internally and externally.

3. The use of technology can enhance the effectiveness of security measures exponentially.

On the other hand, solutions as simple and affordable as the erection of a fenced security perimeter and a monitoring system could certainly increase port security. I cannot believe we needed the Senate to come up with that.

In conclusion, while this motion has a certain interest, the Bloc will not support it essentially because it is vague, ambiguous and too general to risk tying our hands for.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, before I proceed, I want to say that I totally agree with what my colleague had to say about the motion.

For those who are watching, it might be interesting to read the motion once again, to fully appreciate the comments that can be made throughout the debate. It was not supposed to be a votable motion, but it will be following a decision made by the Speaker of the House.

The motion reads as follows: “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”.

There is a part of this motion that we cannot disagree with, but there is also another part on which we cannot agree and, since this motion has been made a votable item, members will understand that we have to vote against it.

In the last few weeks, even the last few months, the Bloc Quebecois has made its position clear on the bills the government introduced to address the events of September 11 and the issues of international crime and terrorism.

I said at the time, and it still holds true, that we do not have any real example of how this policy has been implemented or abused. As my colleague mentioned earlier, there will always be the potential for abuse as long as the legislation opens the door to certain things, and the legislation in question does open the door to this kind of abuse. I remember stating very clearly in this House that, if the government had a clear vision on how to fight terrorism, it should have submitted its anti-terrorism legislative agenda.

What did it do? First, it introduced Bill C-36, which provided for a whole series of new powers for police and law enforcement officers. It included very broad definitions and infringed upon rights and freedoms, all under cover of ensuring national security.

I remember saying it. The police, the government and the ministers, to whom Bill C-36 gives great powers, bragged about these new powers. Twenty-four hours before this bill was introduced, one could not have imagined that such a piece of legislation would be introduced in this parliament, in a country called Canada. Canada is not a police state, as other countries may be.

Using as an excuse the events of September 11, the need to protect national security and the fact that the public was concerned, the government introduced Bill C-36. Even then, I had concerns about its application, and I still do. The fact that there has not been any abuse of these new powers so far does not mean that it will never happen.

In its great wisdom, the government did not unveil its entire legislative menu to fight terrorism. First, it put Bill C-36 through the House, and then it introduced another bill, Bill C-42, which went a little further. Unfortunately for the government, it went too far and met resistance.

We already had Bill C-36, which allowed electronic surveillance, gave increased powers to the police, and authorized arrests without a warrant. Then there was the whole issue of the sunset clause in the bill, which finally became a review clause. These powers already exists. Bill C-42, without giving increased powers, without providing for the establishment of military zones or something of the kind, went much too far, and it was just unacceptable.

Again today, we are debating Bill C-42; we are talking about it, but we have not adopted it. When will the government bring back Bill C-42? We will see.

However, we know that because of pressure from the United States, part of this bill was passed before Christmas because the U.S. had finally decided that no Canadian plane would be allowed to land in the U.S. if this part of the bill was not passed. We had no choice, economically, from the point of view of travelling and all that could result from refusing to pass that part of the legislation. We therefore had a vote and passed that part.

As for the legislation, as my colleague said earlier, the government seems to deal with in a piecemeal fashion. If the government really had a clear vision of the type of legislation needed to deal with terrorism effectively, it would not have gone about it this way. It would have introduced legislation as a package that we could have analyzed on the basis of our own experience and of the case law that exists in this country, with our way of doing things and with our charter of rights and freedoms. We could have analyzed the whole range of government initiatives to fight organized crime. Instead, it has been done bit by bit.

Worst yet, on top of giving excessive powers to some categories and putting forward legislation that is going too far, which I hear even from the police, the money is not forthcoming to make sure the act is implemented properly. It is all very nice to give powers to the police, but if we want these powers to be exercised properly, if we want that there be monitoring, to prevent abuse and to fight efficiently against terrorism, we must make sure we have the money to implement the act.

I can already hear the government say “We have allocated the money; we made an announcement”. Indeed, it announced it would invest $576 million over six years in national security, $21 million of which had already been announced even before September 11. However, it lumped it all together to make the amount look bigger, to make itself look good and to score political points. It said “Five hundred and seventy-six million dollars over five years”.

However, if we take away what had already been announced for various programs, we are left with $87 million a year of new money to implement the Anti-terrorism Act, increase monitoring at borders and in ports, when we know that the government's position on ports is to cut personnel. Indeed, there have been layoffs in major ports, in the ports of entry for containers and ships coming from abroad. The government has made cuts when it was supposed to enhance port security.

It is so true that, in this respect, I read recently in the paper that the Americans were going to put their own people in Canadian ports to monitor everything heading for the United States through Canada. This is going too far. Canada is loosing its sovereignty to foreign countries. On top of this, the border will be just about 100% monitored by the Americans.

Mr. Speaker, you seem to be in agreement with what I just said. I realize that what I am saying does not please the Liberals, but that is the reality. If Quebec were sovereign, we would have done things quite differently from the government across the way. This is another reason why Quebec must be sovereign, because we do things differently from the people across the way. Furthermore, it is the only way for Quebec to develop as it should.

However, I did not intend to talk about Quebec's sovereignty. Let us talk about Canada's sovereignty and the great Canadians opposite who kowtow to the Americans and give away a little more of Canada's sovereignty every day. One of the latest compromises is to allow Americans in Canadian ports to rule the roost with respect to the containers in transit to the United States.

This is the vision the members opposite have of Canada. I could have talked about this for hours, but it would seem that my time is up. This is a very interesting topic, but as my colleague said previously, we cannot support this motion for the reasons I mentioned and many other reasons, whether it pleases the government or not.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his participation in the debate. He always brings an interesting perspective to this. I want to draw his attention back to the subject at hand, and that is this issue of port security, not just maritime ports but all ports of entry.

I want to draw his attention to the Senate committee report, which I think he is familiar with. In that report, after the committee heard from a number of informed witnesses on the ground, it mentioned that organized crime was flourishing at many Canadian ports. The report stated specifically that it creates “fertile ground for terrorist activity...and shipment of weapons and other agents of mass destruction”. The issue was so serious that it was unanimously recommended that an immediate public inquiry into select ports be done and be done quickly.

I wonder if my colleague would agree that a broad public inquiry, wherein we could hear from the interested parties, from those actually carrying out the day to day administration of justice at ports, at our border and in airports as well as other aspects of national security, including our military, would be a useful exercise. Would it be a useful exercise to call for a public inquiry and would his party would support that call?

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, indeed I am aware of the Senate committee that studied this issue. If we really want to be successful in fighting organized crime and terrorism, perhaps the time has come to look at what is going on in our ports, since Canada has major ports on two oceans. Perhaps the time has come to review the whole issue of recruiting practices, of the influence of organized crime on people who work in our ports, the effectiveness of ship inspection procedures, and available resources.

I said earlier that the number of people working in Canada's ports has been reduced, and I was not joking. Despite everything that happened, the government felt it necessary to make cuts in terms of inspecting ships and checking containers and goods arriving in Canada by ship. I think it is a serious problem. If it takes an inquiry to find a solution, then it should be carried out, because everything that has to do with what can land in our country through these points of entry is very important.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to pick up on that point about the Senate report looking at security in Canada's ports.

Many years ago, as a university student, I had a job at the port in Montreal. I was a security officer. In fact, I was an officer of the Canadian Pacific Railway police. I saw firsthand what was going on in the port. Those were the days before containerization. There was a lot of pilferage.

I think we should be careful when we make these broad-brushed statements. Certainly the people who work as longshoremen and stevedores are some tough dudes, if I can put it that way.

Many of them worked in the Montreal port and of course the port shut down in the wintertime and they were able to do other things or go on UI.

I think we should be careful if clearly people are trying to get their lives back in order. Maybe they do have a history of some criminality, but I think to make the jump between criminality and terrorism is a stretch because many of these criminals really would have no time for terrorist activities. I think we need to be careful when we make those big shifts in assumptions.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if the member says that he is familiar with the problems in our ports, then he must realize that things are not going well in that area, that organized crime is very present there, that the number of inspectors has been reduced and that the technology used for checking containers is outdated. Canada has not come out of the 1950s yet with regard to that technology. There are problems.

The member says that he is very familiar with the situation. He is a government member, so he can pass along messages. He can tell the Minister of Finance to put money into ports and national security and to give police forces adequate funding. It is one thing to have legislative tools, but it also takes money to be effective in our fight and to ensure that a complex piece of legislation is properly implemented.

There can be abuse. This is why we must target our efforts, and I think Canada's ports deserve our attention, considering everything that is going on and the information we have in that regard.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Ottawa Centre has approximately two minutes left before we move on to the recorded divisions.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to remind my colleagues that September 11 made us realize that the use of commercial passenger aircraft as weapons required us to re-examine security in all modes of transportation. Clearly our environment--

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I am sorry to interrupt. I have just been informed that it is not votable any more and therefore we will go until 5.30. The hon. member has his full ten and five.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, after my ten minutes I would like to give the remaining time to my colleague from Scarborough--Agincourt.

As I was saying, clearly our environment has changed dramatically. We have turned our attention to a new range of possible threats to other modes of transportation, including threats to cargo shipping.

Canada's actions since last September have focused on new threats to and vulnerabilities of the marine transportation sector. While the primary focus has in the past been on passenger services, including cruise ships and their terminals, the federal government is aware that terrorist activities could expand to threaten other marine activities. Of particular concern are: U.S. destined containers handled in bond at Canada's three major ports; cross-border ferries; the St. Lawrence Seaway system; and cross-border cargo movement.

The new age of terrorism has caused an anticipated increase in security costs for the marine transportation sector. As new threats and vulnerabilities are identified, the marine transportation sector is taking the necessary steps to enhance its security.

The Canadian marine industry has been very proactive following the September terrorist attacks and is working in close co-operation with the government. For instance, the Shipping Federation of Canada and the Chamber of Shipping of British Columbia have put in place measures to ensure that their members are advised of increased security actions to be taken.

Also, the Canadian Lake Carriers Association and the Canadian Shipowners Association have issued a communication entitled “Guidelines for the Protection of Great Lakes Commerce during Periods of High Risk to National Security”. This publication provides the Great Lakes shipping industry, in particular the officers and crew on board U.S. flag and Canadian flag Great Lakes vessels, with recommended actions that can be taken on board ships to combat sabotage of vessels, docks, terminals, locks and channels.

In the immediate aftermath of the September attacks, the government increased mandatory reporting time for arriving vessels to 96 hours from the previous 24. This increased time period permits more effective evaluation of available information such as cargo manifests, crew lists and other ship information.

The government has also responded to the marine security challenges by forming the interdepartmental marine security working group, chaired by Transport Canada. This working group will co-ordinate the efforts of federal departments and agencies related to marine security. It has created a panel of intelligence experts from various departments to prepare new threat assessments in the marine sector. In addition the government has formed regional working groups to co-ordinate security efforts on the Pacific, Atlantic and Arctic coasts.

Budget 2001 provided $60 million, allocated as follows: $15 million to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the coast guard to enhance coastal surveillance; $6 million to Transport Canada to conduct risk and vulnerability assessments and to develop mitigation programs; and $39 million as a contingency reserve to fund other necessary improvements to marine security. One of the first budget expenditures has been the allocation of funds to the RCMP to acquire additional equipment and specific training for its marine emergency response teams.

The St. Lawrence Seaway represents a critical maritime access to North America's heartland around the Great Lakes, including major cities, nuclear energy sites and international bridges. The St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation, in co-operation with its U.S. counterpart, took early action to ensure that vessels and their crews, cargo and passengers transiting the seaway and moving about the Great Lakes are adequately screened and monitored.

Currently, as a result, basic security functions and bylaw enforcement in port areas are the responsibility for individual Canada port authorities. Police forces of local jurisdictions, generally municipal forces in major urban areas and provincial or RCMP forces in smaller communities, ensure standard police services at the port authorities.

Federal law enforcement remains the responsibility of the RCMP and Canada Customs and Revenue Agency for such crimes as unlawful interference, smuggling and illegal immigration.

Also, Canada's port authorities are responsible for arranging police services that extend beyond those services provided by police forces of local jurisdiction. Major ports in conjunction with their terminal operators and local police have undertaken and continue to make major improvements to security.

For example, Halifax is enhancing its perimeter fencing and installing additional security cameras. Best practices in the national ports systems are being closely examined to ensure that the highest possible security standards are being met.

Montreal on the other hand is improving lighting in certain sectors to increase the effectiveness of its closed circuit television camera network. It is installing an integrated identification and access control system for its container terminals.

Vancouver has already installed a state of the art container and vehicle mobile screening unit that will significantly increase the container inspection rate at that port.

At ports with cruise ship facilities, regulations pursuant to the Marine Transportation Security Act require that all embarking cruise ship passengers and their goods must be screened. These regulations have been developed in consultation with port and vessel operators and are based on guidelines developed by the International Maritime Organization.

In addition, Transport Canada has signed memoranda of understanding with cruise ship operators and with the facilities that handle them to outline responsibilities and requirements on a number of security related items, including training for security personnel, emergency exercises and participation in security committees.

Internationally the Government of Canada continues to work with other states, as well as with international and regional agencies including the International Maritime Organization and the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation to identify new and emerging threats to marine transportation.

For example, Transport Canada currently participated in an APEC sponsored conference in Singapore which is working toward regional improvements to both aviation and maritime security. In February Canada co-chaired the International Maritime Organization ad hoc security conference in London.

Furthermore, Transport Canada, the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, the Canadian Coast Guard and other federal departments and agencies are working closely with their U.S. counterparts to co-ordinate their approaches to marine and border security.

This collaboration will help to ensure the safety and security of passengers, as well as the effective flow of passengers and goods essential to our national economy.

Transport Canada continually reviews the entire transportation security system as part of its ongoing commitment to the safety and security of the system. It will make further changes as necessary.

Canada has a strong compliance monitoring program in place to monitor marine security requirements. Adjustments will be made to that program as circumstances warrant.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to my colleague when he outlined some of his government's responses.

Some of his comments run directly contrary to the findings and recommendations of the Senate report. In particular it speaks of the hiring and handling of shipments at ports not being in the hands of the port authorities and often not in the hands of individual companies. In many cases it is in the hands of the union. There is literally no guarantee of a national standard if there is no national standard pertaining to security at the ports.

I am glad he mentioned the port of Halifax. Given the downloading of responsibilities and the cuts to Ports Canada, policing, the military, our coast guard, all of it has an eventual cost in terms of our ability to provide security.

The municipal police in Halifax have been doing an extraordinary job under the circumstances. The reality is they have responsibilities for the entire municipality of Halifax. If they get a call about a break and enter they are going to leave the port.

The direct involvement of a full time ports police presence with specialized training that has jurisdiction from customs and revenue, immigration, the criminal code and jurisdiction over the court itself, to mention but a few, would surely provide a better level of security. The member also mentioned fencing and some of the other physical barriers that could be put in place, as well as cameras.

Does the member not agree that a specialized police force could provide a service tailored to ports and the specific threat that is posed at the ports?

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians have told us over and over again that their two main priorities are economic security and personal security. With that spirit in mind, the government came forward with its security agenda. With that spirit in mind, the government embarked on a plan that is in the process of being implemented.

It is imperative for us to have the co-operation of all the different authorities in different parts of the country. The creation of another entity may or may not be the answer. The government is working within the existing system and with the existing agencies and organizations, including police forces and the RCMP, in trying to co-ordinate efforts collectively. That is the best approach at this point in time.

[Roy H. Bailey, Canadian Alliance, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, prior to September 11 we had already established the ports police. I would like to ask the hon. member, have you heard from any port authority that the new arrangement with city or municipal police is a better arrangement than what they had previously? That question should be answered. I have yet to hear a port claim that existing police services are better than what they had before.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I would remind members to address their comments to the Chair.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know it is hard for my colleagues on the opposite side to give credit to the government when credit is due and it is due.

We have a very comprehensive strategy on the part of the government, including the Minister of Transport. We have a complete and comprehensive plan which responds to the needs of Canadians.

Two days ago in the House I spoke about government investment in the areas of airports and road transportation. Today I say to my colleagues that when it comes to the marine system and the security the government has put in place, it is an excellent strategy. The authorities all across the country in all of the different ports are working very closely with the government to ensure the safety and security of Canadians as well as the safety and security of our neighbours.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The hon. member for Scarborough--Agincourt on debate. There are two minutes remaining.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are here to discuss a very important issue, the security of our country Canada.

We as a country have been involved in every global conflict which has transpired since we became a country, for example, the Boer war, World War I, World War II, Korea, the gulf war, Kosovo and today the conflict in Afghanistan.

There has not been a conflict on our shores in North America since the day we became a nation. We have the longest undefended border in the world and we get along with our neighbours to the south. Unfortunately however, our friends in the United States had a knee-jerk reaction and automatically responded by wanting to have more security at our borders. Some of them even said to close the border after what happened on September 11.

Many politicians in the United States automatically blamed Canada for what happened in their country. To date, no terrorists who contributed to the events in the United States on September 11 have been linked to Canada. It was not our immigration system, our national security system nor our airline system which was to blame for what happened in New York on September 11, 2001. That is not to say we could not also be victims of such an event.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

It being 5.30 p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that proceedings on the motion before the House have expired.

The House resumed from February 21 consideration of the motion.

Business of Supply

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, February 21, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on Motion No. 296 under private members' business.

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[John Williams, Canadian Alliance, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like it to be noted that the motion we will vote on this evening is called the Catterall-Williams report.