Debates of Oct. 21st, 2009

Ending Conditional Sentences for Property and other Serious Crimes Act

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, first I ask indulgence to answer my Liberal colleague's second question. He asked about the effectiveness of minimum sentences.

I would say that I believe they are effective. The reason I believe not only that minimum sentences are effective but also that conditional sentences need to be restricted is that we have to take into consideration the victims. We have to start balancing this process. We have gotten to the point where offenders are receiving much more consideration than are victims and the impacts on victims.

That is why I believe that minimum sentences are effective, and I believe that restricting conditional sentences is also effective.

I will go back to the question from my hon. colleague from the NDP with regard to offences that have a maximum sentence of 14 years or life. Many of these are very serious offences. He has touched on a few of them. Without knowing the history or the details of an offence, and having only a simple statement of what the offence is, I do not have enough to make a determination, nor would I take the position that I am the judge or jury.

It is not my job to decide what sentence is to be given. My job is to say that I believe conditional sentences should be restricted for those crimes that have maximum sentences of 14 years or life.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Saint Boniface for her great intervention today. We are really lucky to have a woman of her calibre here, with her experience in the field, working with the police forces, working with victims and having an understanding of why we need to have tougher sentencing in this country.

In my riding people are always appalled at the idea that somebody could break into and enter a person's house, violate that person's home and then get a condition whereby they can go and return to their own home to live out their sentence in the comfort of their home while the other person's place has been violated and gutted.

We just went through an experience in my riding where one person went out and committed a whole series of acts of arson, burned down about three houses, attempted to burn down a couple of others and then got to spend time in conditional sentencing.

The victims of those crimes are saying that they do not have a house anymore but that individual gets to go back and serve out their sentence in the comfort of their own home. That is so wrong on so many levels.

I am asking the hon. member for Saint Boniface to talk about how she sees this coming into effect and actually providing the victims with some retribution and feeling that they have that ability.

We are getting a lot of questions from the NDP, and yet in Manitoba the NDP provincial government supports this type of legislation. The Minister of Justice there is very much in support of being tougher on crime. I wonder why his federal cousins are not on the same page.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for such kind words. It is a pleasure and a privilege for me to be working with this party on the government side. I hope to be here for a long time to see justice come about through legislation such as we are talking about here today.

I want to echo my appreciation of our Attorney General in the province of Manitoba, an NDP Attorney General who is very much on the same page with regard to our attempts to see that justice issues are dealt with as we are trying to do here today with Bill C-42.

I am pleased to talk about victims because I have dealt with, as I said before, thousands of victims who have been asking for changes so that they feel that justice is being done. I believe that Bill C-42 will help to address the concerns of our victims.

I will give an example of a couple of cases that were absolutely atrocious to the victims, which dealt with conditional sentences. We had a situation in the city of Winnipeg where a babysitter became enraged with a two-year-old child and did not have the ability to deal with this child. As a result, the babysitter decided to punish the child, took this small baby's hands, went to a pot of boiling water and inserted the baby's hands into this boiling water and inflicted severe burns on this child's hands.

This child will never, ever be the same. What did this offender receive as a sentence? It was an 18-month conditional sentence in the comfort of her home, watching her television, and the victims felt betrayed. They felt as if they had done nothing to help prevent this from happening to another child.

I side with the victims here who want to make sure that this is prevented, that no more children are harmed and that we as a society are doing the right thing in the interest and the administration of justice.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I also rise to speak to this legislation from the perspective of the context in which we have to address it and the attempt by the government, in a very undemocratic fashion, to do an end run around a vote that took place in the House approximately three years ago on the precursor bill, Bill C-9, which the government brought in shortly after it was elected in 2006. It was the first crime bill that the Conservatives brought in.

In the 2006 election, both the Conservatives and the NDP ran their platform around the issue of eliminating the use of conditional sentences for serious violent crimes. That was the terminology, and it was almost identical in both party platforms.

Bill C-9 came forward, but that was not what it attempted to do. As so often happens with the Conservative Party, it was a huge over-reach.

Bill C-9 would have eliminated the use of conditional sentences for 40 or 45 sections of the Criminal Code. Were these sections all dealing with serious violent crime? We have to remember that the Conservatives promised Canadians in their platform to eliminate conditional sentences.

There were sections in there about altering data in a computer. That was an offence and the conditional sentence would no longer be used after that kind of conviction. There were sections about forging a testamentary document. It was the same thing. That is not a violent crime. There was a whole list of these.

Accurately, as was described by some members who spoke earlier, the combined opposition parties moved to bring the bill to committee. We in the NDP told Canadians that we would remove the use of conditional sentences for serious violent crimes, and we did that, and then we eliminated the other sections. We complied with what we had said to Canadians. We were quite happy to do that because it was what we had promised. We accomplished one of the promises we had made to the electorate.

Bill C-9 came back to the House and a substantial majority voted for it. I think the Conservatives might even have voted for it, but I cannot remember. I should have checked that. The bill went on to the Senate where it was approved and became law and is law to this day. That was a promise made and a promise kept, as opposed to what the Conservatives would have wanted to do.

Following the way of their straight partisan politics, the Conservatives have now decided to bring Bill C-42 forward, along with many other bills, and are attempting to convince the Canadian people that they are tough on crime. I would like to emphasize toughness not smartness.

It was interesting to note the evidence that came out in the course of the debate in committee on Bill C-9 and to a lesser degree when it came back to the House. I remember both the justice minister and the minister for public safety and national security appeared before committee. In both cases they were asked if they knew how many more people were going to be incarcerated and if they knew how much that was going to cost.

Let me digress on this point and explain how conditional sentences work. A judge has to determine that he or she would not sentence a person eligible for a conditional sentence to incarceration in an institution for more than two years. In effect, they would be sentenced, if they were going to be incarcerated, to a period of time of two years less a day. If anybody understands the system in this country, all of those sentences of two years less a day are served in provincial prisons.

Let me go back to the two questions of whether they knew how much it was going to cost and did they know how many were going to be put in? In both cases, the ministers did not know.

I and some of my colleagues from the other parties dug out that information regarding that long list of 45 offences that may no longer be eligible for conditional sentences. All those people would then go to jail for two years less a day. I want to be clear on this. This was information that came from within the Department of Justice. Let me repeat that. The source of this information in writing was the Department of Justice. It turns out that 5,000 more people would be put in provincial jails. Of course, the ministers did not have to worry about that, did they? Not a dime of that was coming out of the federal coffers. They were just dumping this problem of 5,000 more inmates on the provincial system.

Knowing how much it costs per year for an inmate, we estimated that those 5,000 additional inmates in our prisons at the provincial level would cost the provinces in the range of $250 million to $500 million a year. There are many provinces that would like to be able to spend that money.

Because there was no way that the provincial systems could accommodate 5,000 additional inmates with their existing number of beds, there would have to be additions built on to the existing provincial institutions or new ones built. The estimate of what it would cost for capital was in the order of $1.5 billion to $2 billion. Is the federal government going to contribute any of that? Were those two ministers going to have to take it out of their budgets? Absolutely not.

It is important to understand that context because we are faced with the same situation with this bill. If I asked the Minister of Justice or the Minister of Public Safety, who is responsible for corrections, they would not be able to tell me. They would not be able to give me an answer. I am absolutely convinced of that. In fact, last week in the Globe and Mail we saw the article and the editorial attacking the government for refusing to disclose what information it has and what analysis it has done.

I want to be very clear. The analysis that the Minister of Public Safety has done has not taken into account the drug bill that has gone through the House and is sitting in the other place waiting for passage. If that bill and this one pass, he has not done an analysis of how many more inmates there would be. He has not done that.

In spite of the fact that we hear constantly from the Minister of Justice that he keeps being reassured by the Minister of Public Safety that we have lots of space in our federal prisons, it does not matter. He is wrong, by the way, and I am going to come back to that in a second. It does not matter because these people, under Bill C-42, are all going to go into the provincial system.

It was interesting to hear two of my colleagues, one from my party in Quebec and one from the Liberal Party in New Brunswick in the last couple of days tell me that the judges at the provincial level have been told not to send people to jail for weekends because the provincial institutions no longer have space for any of them. They have to put them on probation. That is the reality of what we are faced with at the provincial level and it is true in every single province and territory in this country.

We have signed international protocols that require us to have one inmate per cell. We are breaching that international protocol as much as 50% of the time, particularly at the provincial level but also at the federal level.

Let us go back to the federal system and the assurances—I wanted to use a term that is unparliamentary and I am looking for a synonym—that lack credibility from the Minister of Public Safety.

The head of Correctional Service of Canada, Mr. Don Head, has made it very clear at committee hearings and in the public press in the last month that we do not have the capacity at the federal level, that we are regularly double-bunking, and triple-bunking in some cases, per cell. We are not meeting our international requirements and promises we have made. We do not have that capacity.

Last week the Globe and Mail attacked the minister and the government, because the minister is refusing to disclose the analysis he had done and how much it will cost. That does not take into account these two bills, the one that is before us today and the drug bill that is before the other place right now.

Because of the information we do have up to this point and we will get more, and with the support of the Liberals the bill will obviously go to committee, we will be voting against it. I am quite comfortable in saying that we will see similar numbers, 5,000-plus inmates being incarcerated in our prisons, if this legislation and the drug bill go through. Let me repeat that it will cost the provinces hundreds of millions of dollars a year. It will cost the provinces a huge amount of capital dollars.

It will depend on what our judges do with it. They may say that they cannot send convicts to provincial jails any more, so they may move the sentence up to two years plus a day, or two and a half years or three years and they would then go into the federal system. That would severely impact on the number of inmates at the federal level. It is a realistic possibility, if not a probability, that our judges will start to do that.

I want to make one more point about the cost issue. We always hear from the Conservatives, which is partly why the Liberals run scared on it, that we are soft on crime. I want to use an example in the United States. I think we could argue that most of the states, and Texas and a couple of other southern states in the U.S. may be ahead of them, but California has led the way in throwing people into prison in huge numbers.

Just so we are clear on that, our incarceration rate in Canada is about one-seventh of what it is in the United States. However, it is also the highest of the western democracies after the United States. Japan has an incarceration rate of roughly 60 per 100,000 population. Ours right now is running at about 110 to 120, in those ratios, which is almost double that of Japan. Western democracies in Europe, Australia and New Zealand are running 80 to 90 per 100,000. The United States is running 700-plus per 100,000.

California was one of the states that led the way in getting tough on crime, with the right-wing Reagan-Bush type of agenda, followed very closely by the Conservative Party in this country. In the last few months, Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Governor of California, that person who is really soft on crime, has been compelled to begin to release--he is doing it himself; he has to sign each one of them--thousands of inmates on early parole, including a large number who had been convicted and were serving time for serious violent crime, because the state can no longer afford to pay for it. The prison costs in California exceed what the state spends on post-secondary education. It is part of the bankruptcy with which that state is confronted right now. In order to deal with that, he is having to release thousands of inmates on early parole.

That is a very clear model of what would happen if we follow the agenda followed by the United States and the State of California, which the governing party wants us to follow. I want to juxtapose that with the use of conditional sentences. What came out very clearly in the review of Bill C-9 two and a half years ago was that it is working.

The Conservatives come up with these individual cases where our courts clearly can be said to have overused the conditional sentence. We can always find those cases.

I am a great defender of our judiciary. Having practised law all those years, having analyzed our judges and having analyzed judges in a whole bunch of other countries, I firmly believe that we have the best judges in the world. However, they are human. They make mistakes. We should not be deriving from those mistakes principles that guide us on how we are going to pass legislation around convictions, around sentencing. That should not be the way we do it.

What we should do is look at what has happened since we brought in conditional sentences. It was very clear from the evidence that we took in the review of Bill C-9 that it is working. The recidivism rate is about one-third what it is versus those we incarcerate, 30-plus per cent of those we incarcerate, down around 10% and in some cases, depending on what the charges are and what the convictions are for, as low as 8% and up to 12%, but on average, around 10% or 11% is the recidivism rate.

We hear the anecdotal stories and we hear people say that they are standing up for the victims. What they are standing up for is a system that is going to victimize more people down the road because 30% of the inmates are going to become recidivists and are going to go back and commit oftentimes more serious crimes than the ones they first went in for. We know that prisons train people to do that. Where are they in terms of defending those victims, the future ones who inevitably are going to be a result of these types of policies?

We are going to be voting against this bill at second reading. If the bill gets through the committee and comes back to the House, we are going to be voting against it at third reading. This legislation is the wrong approach. It is going to victimize a large number of additional Canadians as opposed to the alternative of what we have now. It is very clear that as our violent crime rate continues to drop, a good deal of that is because we began using a number of principles around restorative justice, including conditional sentences. Our system is working.

It is interesting. I sat for a number of years on the public safety and national security committee. People from all over the world came to look at what we were doing because our system was working. They were seeing us drop our violent crime rate. They were seeing that we were moving quite dramatically away from the U.S. experience and that it was working. Conditional sentencing was one of the things they would come to take a close look at to see how it worked. In many cases, I understand, they are beginning to look at implementing it in other countries that were not using it before they saw ours.

It is a system that works. Is it perfect? Absolutely not. Are our judges human? Yes, they are. Do they make mistakes? Absolutely, they make mistakes. However, it is still the best system, and it is far superior to what is being proposed under this legislation.

The House resumed from October 8 consideration of the motion.

Environment and Sustainable Development

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion to concur in the second report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #115

Committees of the House

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed from October 19 consideration of the motion that Bill C-306, An Act respecting the use of government contracts to promote economic development, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Canadian Products Promotion Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-306.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #116

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I declare the motion lost.

It being 6:05 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Huntingdon Port of Entry

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should direct the Canada Border Services Agency to change the name of the Huntingdon Port of Entry to “Abbotsford-Huntingdon Port of Entry”.

Mr. Speaker, let me be the next one to congratulate you on becoming the longest-serving Speaker in Canadian history. I think that is a measure of the esteem in which you are held by this House. I have also appreciated the friendship we have developed over the last several years. I know you are a great connoisseur of music, as am I. I think that is also a measure of a great gentleman.

I have the pleasure of sponsoring a motion that is dedicated to building the economy and profile of Canada's most dynamic community, the city of Abbotsford.

I have had the privilege of serving as Abbotsford's member of Parliament for some four years. During my first term in office I was exceedingly fortunate to introduce and pass a private member's bill, Bill C-277, which doubled from 5 to 10 years in prison the maximum sentence for those convicted of luring or attempting to lure children over the Internet for the purposes of sexual exploitation.

It was a bill of national scope and import. I was deeply moved to see all members of this House support my bill, which extends and improves the ability of our justice system to protect our children, the most vulnerable of Canadians against sexual predators.

Today I have a similar opportunity, but this time I am proposing a motion which focuses more specifically on the needs and aspirations of my community, the vibrant city of Abbotsford.

The motion before us simply directs the Canada Border Services Agency to amend the name of the Huntingdon border crossing to Abbotsford-Huntingdon port of entry.

Now, why the change? Abbotsford lies directly on the border with Canada's largest trading partner and closest ally, the United States. Our respective countries share a port of entry, the Huntingdon border crossing, which for so many years has facilitated trade and commerce between us and has contributed to the building of bridges of friendship and understanding between our respective peoples.

The motion before us addresses that particular port of entry. Like many other members of this House, I am extremely proud of my constituency. Abbotsford has been my home for almost 28 years. My wife Annette and I have raised four beautiful daughters in that community.

I have had the privilege to represent Abbotsford as a school trustee, as a member of city council, as deputy mayor and now as its member of Parliament. I can assure members Abbotsford is a wonderful place, and I count it a special blessing to have been selected by the voters of this community to represent their interests right here in Ottawa.

Abbotsford is British Columbia's fifth-largest city and has for several decades been one of the fastest-growing communities in the country. Its strong agricultural sector, university, new hospital, international airport and vibrant economy attract thousands of families who decide to make Abbotsford their home.

As a host for the world-famous Abbotsford International Air Show, our city draws some 250,000 to 300,000 visitors every year to watch performing acts, such as Canada's own Snowbirds and also the U.S. navy's Blue Angels. Of course, recently Abbotsford welcomed its own American hockey league team, the Abbotsford Heat.

Statistics Canada each year reports that Abbotsford is by far and away the most generous community in the country, and a business magazine has named Abbotsford as the best place to do business in western Canada. We are truly blessed to call Abbotsford home.

Over the years Abbotsford has also survived a number of identity crises, due at least in part to the many smaller communities which make up our city. The former district of Sumas, the communities of Clearbrook, Bradner, Mt. Lehman, Clayburn, Arnold, Barrowtown and, yes, historic Huntingdon have all played important roles in Abbotsford's history and subsequent coming of age.

We continue to celebrate their contributions to the Abbotsford we know today. However, in 1996 when the former districts of Abbotsford and Matsqui were amalgamated under the name Abbotsford, this momentous decision finally cleared up much of the confusion surrounding civic boundaries and the location of the community and its facilities and services.

It would surprise everyone to learn that the Abbotsford airport had actually been located in Matsqui, not Abbotsford, as had Abbotsford Nissan, South Abbotsford Church and Abbotsford Collision. Although Matsqui had a significantly larger population, it was the district of Abbotsford's smaller population numbers that for some time proved to be a disincentive for retail businesses to set up shop in our area.

All of this confusion came to an end with the decision of local residents to choose Abbotsford as the name for the amalgamated city. Today, Abbotsford flourishes under its strengthened identity while still valuing the many individual communities that form an integral part of the city.

That brings me to one notable exception. As a vibrant border community, Abbotsford has become one of Canada's important border crossings. With 75% to 80% of Canada's trade being with the United States, it will not surprise anyone that Abbotsford's port of entry, called Huntingdon, has become extremely busy with truck and passenger vehicle traffic. Yet, the term “Huntingdon” on its own severely limits the ability to capitalize on the role that the border crossing plays in the economic prosperity of the city.

The current name has little brand recognition and struggles to enhance the North American public's awareness of this burgeoning city. As everyone knows, Abbotsford is on the west coast. It is only an hour away from Vancouver. It is a dynamic city and its residents want to ensure that its identity is preserved and enhanced.

It is for that reason that my motion proposes to direct the federal government to change the name of our border crossing to Abbotsford-Huntingdon port of entry. By doing so, it achieves two things. First, travellers and commercial enterprises alike will have a much better idea of where Abbotsford is located, highlighting the presence of a major international crossing within the city limits. In short, the name change reinforces the higher profile that the city of Abbotsford deserves.

Second, by retaining reference to Huntingdon, it honours and preserves the historical significance of the present community of Huntingdon and the role that the railway played in the settlement of the Fraser Valley.

I want to assure the House that this motion has the full support of the city council of Abbotsford, the Abbotsford Chamber of Commerce and Tourism Abbotsford, as well as many other residents. The motion before the House makes a very simple request of our government. It states:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should direct the Canada Border Services Agency to change the name of the Huntingdon Port of Entry to “Abbotsford-Huntingdon Port of Entry”.

This will honour the wishes of the large majority of my constituents and add the name Abbotsford to our one and only port of entry. The support of my colleagues in the House is greatly appreciated.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague from Abbotsford why he moved a motion that is, we believe, completely insignificant. This motion concerns a name change, at a time when there are so many pressing needs and problems at border crossings.

I would like to know why the Conservatives have not yet honoured an election promise made in 2006 to maintain an RCMP presence and increase the number of customs officers at border crossings, and why they will not take this opportunity to introduce a bill that is much more substantial.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am really surprised at this question. Here we have a member of the Bloc Québécois referring to something that is very important to the city of Abbotsford as being insignificant. It may be insignificant to him and to the Bloc, but I can say that to the residents of Abbotsford this is a very important issue, one that I have been lobbied on for many years by the chamber of commerce, by the city of Abbotsford, and by Tourism Abbotsford.

I want to ask him a question. When we deal with those issues, which I am sure he would consider significant, such as imposing mandatory minimum prison sentences of five years on those who traffic in children, why would he then vote against that? Why would he vote against protecting the most vulnerable in our society?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, what is unfortunate is it has to come to the House through a bill.

What has been CBSA's opposition to preventing this from happening without the House of Commons having to actually intervene? That is the level of we are at and I would like to hear the reasons why. I have seen some of the documents and they do not seem to make a lot of sense in why this cannot happen.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member asked a good question and it is one that is worthy of response.

The CBSA has raised a legitimate concern in the communications we have received back, and that is about the cost of changing the name of a border crossing port of entry. The name of that port of entry will show up on maps. All kinds of stationary would need to be changed. Signage would have to change. These things can be overcome quite reasonably, and I will tell the House why.

We are talking about a hybrid name. We would simply be adding the name Abbotsford to the existing name Huntingdon Port of Entry. By doing so, it would give CBSA the opportunity, for example, to exhaust its current supply of stationary. It says Huntingdon Port of Entry and the new name would still include that.

I think it is a reasonable response. I am glad the minister has agreed to move forward with this, and I hope I will have the support of the NDP.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Madam Speaker, would the member willing to consider a phase-in period on that basis? If so, what is contemplated? Does he have the specific costs? Is the municipality of Abbotsford, which is obviously supporting this, willing to contribute to any of those costs?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for pledging his support for the motion. This is an example of the kind of work we can do in the House by collaborating with each other and avoiding some of the partisanship that characterizes some of our other debates.

To answer his question, I do not have an exact figure on the costs. I am sure CBSA could come up with some.

Our city has lobbied for this for quite some time. The fact that we have agreed to provide a hybrid name, rather than disposing of Huntingdon and simply replacing it with Abbotsford, allows cost savings as we transition from the one name to the other.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will not speak for a long time. The motion is self-explanatory. It simply adds the word Abbotsford to the border crossing. We will be supporting the motion.

I do have some questions of the member. I would encourage him, as we move forward in this process, to perhaps get more information, specifically on what the costs would be and what the economic advantage would be.

It is sufficient to say that we will support the motion.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to have this opportunity to comment on Motion M-391 moved by the member for Abbotsford.

The Bloc Québécois will certainly support this motion. It is very clear to us that residents of the municipality support the idea of a name that more accurately reflects the reality of this border crossing that they think is more Abbotsford than Huntingdon. We support it because the municipal council seems to support it, as do the Abbotsford tourism centre and chambers of commerce. Residents probably all support it too.

However, I would like to repeat my question for the member from Abbotsford, who did not want to understand, or perhaps the translation was really bad. I did not say that changing the name was insignificant. I said that this motion was insignificant given the needs, I repeat, the needs of our border crossings. However, my colleague hears only what he wants to hear, unless the translation was really atrocious, which I doubt.

Even though we support the name change and the motion, the Bloc thinks it would have been nice if the Conservative Party, which claims to be tough on crime, had taken advantage of the opportunity to keep its 2006 election promise and put the nine RCMP detachments back where they used to be on the Canadian border.

These RCMP detachments were cut by the Liberals. The Conservatives cried foul. They said that it was terrible and rightly so. During the 2006 election campaign, the Conservatives said they would reinstate the detachments. It was during that election, in fact, that the hon. member for Abbotsford was elected. It was one of the Conservative Party's promises. We still do not have those detachments even though the mayors have been consulted and have expressed just how much they are needed.

My riding is on the border and I am well aware of the needs, which go beyond a name change. We need more security at our borders because criminals, specifically drug traffickers, are currently entering Canada with no trouble at all. The customs officers alert the RCMP that criminals are entering at Lacolle, which is one of the major entry points, at Frelighsburg or elsewhere, but the RCMP is in Montreal. Either it does not respond at all, or it arrives a few hours later. There might as well be no RCMP.

It is important for the Granby crossing and a nearby crossing, the Coaticook crossing, which is even closer to the border, to be able to react quickly when someone crosses the border. Year after year, the number of customs officers keeps going down at the respective crossings. When people arrive at the border, they see one customs officer and that is it.

The lack of customs officers and RCMP officers is not just felt at the land crossings, but also on the boundary waters between the United States and Canada. In my riding, with Baie Missisquoi and Lake Champlain, when you cross the border into Canada, all you see is a small sign that directs you to a beach much further away. Once you arrive, you are already in Canada, but you have to phone. A telephone is available, but not to call a nearby border crossing—to call Toronto. It is a direct line to Toronto. You are required to identify yourself and then you can enter.

It happens that people go straight through. There is no surveillance from the border crossing. It would be so easy to build a quay roughly 500 feet from the border crossing to allow the customs officers to keep an eye on what is happening on the water.

But this responsibility was taken away from them. There is no RCMP detachment in the area to ensure that the law is enforced. Thus, it is easy to imagine what goes on. This is also the case for Memphrémagog Lake, which borders the United States. There are really no patrols. People know very well that during certain hours there are no patrols. People can go by boat. We hear about this regularly in my riding.

Thus, it is surprising to see them putting forward a motion like this. It could have included security measures to reduce the number of criminals who freely enter Canada, particularly through Quebec. And yet, laws are enacted to punish them once they arrive here. It would be much easier to prevent them from entering our country. In that way, we would be focusing on the safety of communities and society and not just making a name change.

I would like to come back to the fact that it was the Conservatives who did not agree and were against the Martin government closing RCMP detachments. They were vehemently against it. And yet they closed them. We are not making this up. On January 17, 2005, a CBC investigation showed motorists driving through the Lacolle border crossing without stopping and without the RCMP being notified. If they were notified, as I was saying earlier, they would not be able to catch anyone because they were not there. They arrived much too late.

Even the customs union has stated that criminals, such as drug traffickers, must be prevented from entering Quebec, that the safety of Quebeckers has been compromised and that RCMP detachments are needed at border crossings. The Conservative government is following in the footsteps of the Liberals. In our advertising we state that the Conservatives now hold the same views as the Liberals; in this case, we are right again. In fact, they were against this and now that they are in power, they have completely forgotten about that. In any case, this changes nothing with regard to crime. We are talking about major criminals, people who are real traffickers. It is up to those responsible to decide if money will be freed up for this.

I remember that in April 2006, we had just returned to the House after the election. The government had made a promise in January. The minister responsible at the time, who is now the Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway, had said this in the House:

It will be up to RCMP officials to decide where officers will be posted, but I think that when the mayors of these areas see where the detachments are, they will be happy.

The mayors met, and they all said that it was impossible to monitor the borders and provide a minimal level of security if the RCMP detachments were not near the borders. In any event, in my riding, it is clear that the minister at the time made a huge mistake when he moved the RCMP detachment from Granby to Montreal. But this motion does not say that we are going to come back to the fact that the RCMP detachments must be reopened.

As I said, the Bloc Québécois will certainly support this motion, even though it is only about changing a single name. But we are going to keep on fighting for RCMP detachments in our regions, even if it takes 10 years, because we feel these posts are necessary so that criminals from the United States, or even Canadian criminals who have gone the United States and are coming back with drugs, cannot cross the border into Quebec, at least.

Currently, the border posts, which are about 15 miles from where I live, are not equipped to stop criminals. The RCMP, which really was equipped to do so, is not doing so.

We will vote in favour of this motion, but we still demand that the RCMP return.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to join in the debate on the motion from the member for Abbotsford requesting a name change of the Huntingdon port of entry to the Abbotsford-Huntingdon port of entry.

There is probably not as much interest as there should be from those with the most vested interests in this, and there could be reasons for that, but I am a little bit surprised because it is a very important issue for the community. I have done some research on it. The people of Abbotsford should know that I live on the busiest border crossing between Canada and the United States and that I am the critic for the New Democrats on Canada-U.S. border relations.

I agree with the name change. I saw the CBSA letter to the member and he was very generous in his comments about the suggestion that it would cost a lot of money. Quite frankly, that is an irrelevant and irresponsible response from the department. The people there should be very upset because they have changed their name and the reality of the geography has changed.

It would affect their economy. It does affect other border crossings, with confusion over where people are crossing and making that choice. We know it is very difficult these days, especially with tourism. With the WHTI and a whole series of other initiatives that the United States has put in place, we are losing our border traffic and our connection to the United States.

I need to do some more research because I do not know the exact answer to this. However, I do know that motions in the House of Commons have no standing. The Prime Minister went to great lengths talking about the moral responsibility of enacting motions in the House of Commons when he was in opposition but when we pass motions in the House of Commons that deal with issues ranging from child poverty to unemployment insurance improvements, the government has failed to move.

Motions reflect the spirit of the House but they do not mandate things. I am surprised this motion would not be a bill because if it were a bill then it would be a law. I also do not think the ministers can change the name themselves. This could be a whole ruse on the people of Abbotsford in terms of how to get their name changed. That will require some investigation, because if these are the types of things that are happening, then why do we not just move ahead and change the name?

I think the minister has the capability to do that. However, to do it through this means is rather suspicious because, as we in the chamber all know, a motion is not binding legislation. I have private member's legislation, for example, on the automotive aftermarket and that is done through amending Canadian law. It is the same thing with this issue. We need to do a little more research to find out but I do not know how a motion here will get the end result because once again it is not binding.

I do want to talk about the importance of the crossing. The community has grown, has chosen a new name and has adopted to move away from the past. At the same time, the suggestion of having the combination is a balanced one that respects the history while also showing the importance of the crossing to the community.

I can say that from living on the border and crossing at many locations across Canada, we have seen a dramatic shift away from the past policies with the United States. In fact, since 9/11, there has been an excuse to tighten the border. The previous government and the current government have not done enough to address those issues.

A number of different things have been added, including the militarization of the Canada-U.S. border. Where I live on the Great Lakes, the previous and current administrations changed the law going back to the War of 1812 that banned gun boats and vessels with heavy armaments on the Great Lakes. That has been changed and the U.S. coast guard now has the zodiacs with Browning M-120 machine guns that fire up to 1,400 bullets a minute.

Those machine guns have been used in the Cambodian, Afghan and Iraq wars. These are the types of armaments that are now operating on the Great Lakes. In fact, we were part of a team from across Canada and the United States who opposed the creation of firing ranges that they were going to create in the Great Lakes to practice with this equipment. There was a proposal for 40 different types of firing ranges. These bullets have lead casings that go under the radar of bass fishermen.

Ironically, the government missed the deadline for submission. As New Democrats, we filed a petition against that and worked with groups and organizations in the United States to stop that from happening. We are talking about the most treasured freshwater source in the world and it could not even get its paperwork in on time. The submission that it made was weak-kneed as well.

We have had a series of new measures put on the border that have not only hurt the economy but have also hurt the civil relationship we as individuals, business partners and family members have had with American citizens.

The introduction of the western hemisphere travel initiative requires all Canadians to have a passport to enter into the United States and for Americans who need to get back home after visiting Canada. This has been a significant problem for our communities and our cultures. We have seen tourism and visitations drop off significantly. In fact, just this last year alone, even though we had already retreated, we lost another 10%. Our tourism industries are reeling across the board because of this and the lack of attention to this policy.

We also have the militarization of the border, as I mentioned, which does not just involve what is on the water, but what is in the air, as well as the watchtowers and spy towers that have actually been erected. I was recently in Sarnia where the Port Huron Hindenburg was launched. It is a spy camera that is actually spying on Canadians and the border crossing. It is part of a government contract that was awarded where the company is trying to secure the border through this type of an operation.

The operation of drone planes, Black Hawk helicopters and a number of different operations are unnecessary on the Canada-U.S. border. We should be looking to surveillance and other types of measures that are not intrusive but can be done more cheaply and effectively than the actual hard military equipment.

This has been an irresponsible response from our government because it has not objected to this. In fact, it has signed programs and other types of initiatives that I can tell the House the boating community and others do not like. Canadians and Americans are disengaging from the border on both sides. They are saying that they do not want to go through that type of a process, that type of intimidation. They do not mind having accountability and having the checks and so forth, but it is at a point where people do not even bother to go over the border to visit friends, families or neighbours anymore. That is what hurts and that is why the Canadian economy has been slipping.

One of the issues we have been facing is the extra costs at the border crossing. Many studies from chambers of commerce provincially as well as federally show the billions of dollars lost in trade because of many of these measures that are unnecessary, such as the APHIS fees that the U.S. has imposed on Canadian goods and agriculture, another tax on top of the shipping process that has been increased to such a level that the trucks need to stop more often and pay more.

I can tell the House that the Mexican government retaliated when new fees and procedures were imposed upon it and it actually charged the Americans back for that. Our government, interestingly enough, actually gives the Americans money for some of the fees that happen to go back and we rebate that to their crossings. It does not make any sense.

I want to make sure this is clear. The people of Abbotsford should know that the border crossing improvements that are happening need to be done with accountability. We also need to ensure that when we lose these types of relationships we should be measuring results on what we can do to improve them.

I have approached the Canadian Tourism Commission about how we can create a pilot project or put a system in place to measure whether the Americans are getting passports and how we can encourage them to get passports because the acquisition of passports by U.S. citizens is down to around 30%. Canadians are around 50%. We need to get over a lot of obstacles to get them to purchase passports. Some will not do it because they do not want their private information in the hands of government. Others do not want to do it because of the cost. Others do not want to do it because they simply do not want to go through the process that is imposed upon them.

When we start to look at what we do next, we need an organized tourism strategy, and that is something we as New Democrats want to see happen because the challenges we face are unique and they are also increasing. That needs to stop because the quality of so many people's lives is being lessened because of it.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to support the motion of the member for Abbotsford on the need to change the name of the port of entry from Huntingdon to Abbotsford-Huntingdon. It is a logical and overdue development, in my opinion.

Before I had the honour of being elected to represent my home, the beautiful constituency of Langley, I had the pleasure of serving for almost 14 years on Abbotsford city council with my good friend, the member for Abbotsford.

I want to begin by acknowledging his hard work. As I said, I worked with him for many years on Abbotsford council. He was a hard-working city councillor and, as he reminded us, he was the deputy mayor. He is now in the House of Commons and is one of the hardest working people in Ottawa. He is also a very talented musician and a very talented man. It is a real honour to work with him not only years ago in Abbotsford, but now in Ottawa. We are neighbours. My home of Langley is to the west of Abbotsford, so I am very familiar with the issues.

During my time on the Abbotsford council, I became well acquainted with the issues of tourists and, for that matter, local residents being confused about where in the world the Huntingdon border crossing was. I can say with certainty that changing the name of the border crossing will have a positive effect on local economic development by encouraging tourism. It will eliminate the confusion of travellers and help the community of Abbotsford to prosper in the years to come by letting people know that Huntingdon and Sumas are really part of the city of Abbotsford.

It was in the nineties that the community of Matsqui and the city of Abbotsford amalgamated. At that time, when the vote came to whether the communities should be amalgamated, residents were asked what they would like the city to be called. Should it be called Abbotsford or Matsqui? There was input about what the airport should be called. Should it be called the Clearbrook airport, the Matsqui airport or the Abbotsford airport? Over the years there has been tremendous support for the name of Abbotsford because people in the area know the airport. The Abbotsford Airport is famous for the air show, but the area is known as Abbotsford, and to call it anything else would cause some confusion.

This is a continuation. The member is working hard and listening to his community. He has brought it before the House and he is looking for support. I am glad to hear that it appears we have support from the Liberal members, we hope from the Bloc members and also from the NDP members. I am not quite sure about the Bloc, but I hope so.

We heard a lot about the importance of the RCMP working with CBSA, and in most communities, including Quebec, that is the situation. Abbotsford has its own police force. If there is a border issue, the policy is to contact the RCMP because that is the national police force dealing with a national border.

I listened intently and want to thank the Bloc member. I have had a lot of good times and discussions with him over the years. I appreciate what he had to say today. I did not hear it, but I hope he supports the motion because it is a good motion. I am getting a nod. I want to thank him. I had the pleasure of working with the member at the environment committee, and we had a lot of important issues.

I want to share a little of the importance of the member for Abbotsford and how, over the years, he has worked on the environment too.

I also want to say a few words about the local support on the motion. There is broad consensus among the civic politicians and among the business community that changing the name from Huntingdon to Abbotsford-Huntingdon is long overdue. Letters of support have been provided by the Abbotsford chamber of commerce and Abbotsford city council to make the needed change.

The economy of the eastern Fraser Valley has changed in the last couple of decades. The importance of marketing Abbotsford to people outside the community has grown. That is why it has very strong support locally for making this important change

Changing the name of Huntingdon port of entry fits also into a broader picture of events. The arrival of the Winter Olympics in a few short months will provide an outstanding opportunity for international tourists to experience winter in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia.

Our international friends will discover that winter in Vancouver, Whistler, my beautiful home of Langley, and Abbotsford is not unlike that of their hometowns. The temperature and climate provide the communities of metro Vancouver and Fraser Valley with an opportunity to market themselves in winter to tourists who are not used to the vigour of the prairie snowfalls. Indeed, the Winter Olympics will provide an amazing opportunity for the entire world to get a glimpse of what Canada and British Columbia are like up close. We should expand the post-Olympics benefits of increased international exposure to communities like Abbotsford to promote Abbotsford's tourism potential for the long term.

Our friends across the border are simply confused about why the border crossing is called Huntingdon but the city is called Abbotsford. Why is that? Such confusion simply does not help Abbotsford's effort to capitalize on the Olympics experience to create long-term economic benefits. There are opportunities if the name is clear and understandable, so why is the crossing called Huntingdon if it is part of Abbotsford? Again with the history of the name being changed over the years and the amalgamation, this is a continuation to provide clarity now to the border crossing with this important Olympics coming.

Names have meanings and names have a significance that goes well beyond providing just a label. They provide identity. They give a sense of recognition and branding to particular regions of the country. In today's economy, corporations and governments give very careful consideration to the impact of a name on public consciousness because of the economic impacts that names will have.

I know that other border communities in Canada are interested in this debate because the name of their port of entry has an important impact on their economy.

What the people of Abbotsford are seeking is simply a logical change so that people driving through this particular port of entry will know that they have arrived in Abbotsford. It is as simple as that.

The other thing I would like to acknowledge is the hard work of the member for Abbotsford on the environment.

We well know the importance of fighting climate change. Canada has a plan with an aggressive target of 20% reduction by 2020. We have worked very hard. Our government is in consultation with the Obama administration on a clean energy dialogue. We are moving forward on a North American target of 20% by 2020. The Waxman-Markey bill went through the House of Representatives in Washington, D.C. President Obama is working with us on a clean energy dialogue, and now the bill is before the U.S. Senate.

The targets that are being presented by the U.S. are very similar; ours are 20% by 2020 and the Americans' are 20% by 2020. What is the advantage of that? It is very important that there be a common approach in North America as we go to Copenhagen to come up with an international agreement that will truly tackle the issue of climate change.

My friend from the Bloc was at the environment committee where we heard the importance of having a coordinated North American approach. That is what we now see being developed with the United States having similar targets.

I know that the member for Abbotsford supports that aggressive target of 20% by 2020. I hope my friend from the Bloc will also support that aggressive target. Together, we will fight climate change. We will come up with an international agreement that really will do something to fight climate change. The days of the Liberals doing nothing are over. We need the Bloc to support us and to get something done on climate change.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise in response to the motion put forward by my caucus colleague, the hon. member for Abbotsford. I, too, have a great affection for Abbotsford. In fact, I have spent many happy days there at Abbotsford air shows, either attending or performing and visiting friends. Abbotsford is a real jewel in the crown of Canadian cities.

I would like to provide some sense of the role that the Canada Border Services Agency will provide and what is behind the sign that will read “Canada Border Services Agency--Agence des services frontaliers du Canada--Abbotsford, B.C.”.

The CBSA has one of the most challenging responsibilities in government today, managing the border access of people and goods to defend Canada's sovereignty, security, health and prosperity. The smart administration of national borders is a critical element of the security continuum that must be linked with overseas and domestic efforts and that can be successful only through effective partnerships with other government departments, our counterparts in the U.S., and other countries in the trade and travel industries.

Since its inception in 2003, the CBSA has made a top priority of forging strong working relationships with its counterparts in the U.S., the U.S. Customs and Border Protection service. The long-standing cooperation between Canada and the U.S. has led to numerous key achievements with respect to border management including joint pre-approval programs for low-risk people and goods, such as the NEXUS trust and travel program and the FAST program, not the member for Abbotsford but the free and secure trade program.

We also share information on national security threats, jointly target marine containers, and continually look for ways to harmonize programs, systems and procedures. Some of the greatest progress has been made in daily cooperation across individual border crossings such as that between Abbotsford, B.C. and Sumas, Washington. A significant bilateral challenge over the past few years has been the U.S. western hemisphere travel initiative, WHTI, which is now fully implemented at locations including Sumas, Washington across the border from Abbotsford.

The Canadian government has stressed its support for the security objectives underlying the U.S. WHTI, while conveying its concern that WHTI be implemented in a manner that does not needlessly interrupt legitimate tourism and travel or undermine the Canada-U.S. relationship.

The CBSA has been part of the overall federal effort on the WHTI file to ensure Canadians are well informed and prepared for new requirements and that WHTI is implemented as smoothly as possible. The government has also been supportive of provincial efforts to develop WHTI-compliant enhanced driver's licences. CBSA risk management is multi-layered based on pre-approval programs to facilitate low-risk people and goods, on advance information on people and goods coming to Canada, and on risk-based intelligence.

The border is traditionally the first opportunity to interdict many threats on which the CBSA increasingly focuses its enforcement resources at the continental perimeter and overseas, through, for example, the use of migration integrity officers at 45 overseas locations for immigration enforcement and risk-assessment of shipping containers at their port of loading in countries such as Japan, Panama and South Africa. The idea is to push the border out to the extent possible, to extend the enforcement of border policy to ports of departure around the world rather than strictly at ports of arrival in Canada.

These efforts enhance the safety profile of people and goods once they reach ports such as Abbotsford. I would like to provide a few examples of some other programs implemented by the Canada Border Services Agency to improve border security and to facilitate the flow of people and goods. Partners in protection, PIP, is a voluntary government-to-business initiative designed to enlist the cooperation of private industry to enhance border and supply-chain security.

On June 30, 2008, the CBSA implemented a modernized PIP program with strict security requirements that give additional credibility to members as low-risk traders. PIP is compatible and mutually recognized by the custom trade partnership against terrorism program of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection service.

The CBSA is harmonizing these requirements with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection service to create increased border security without imposing competing sets of requirements on the North American trading community. Over the past two years the agency has implemented radiation detection systems at ports in Saint John, Montreal, Halifax, Prince Rupert and Vancouver. This provides a tight radiation detection net at marine ports and thus helps to ensure the safety of containers that move inland and cross at land border ports such as Abbotsford.

This government is also committed to protecting those who protect our border by arming 4,800 border services officers by March 2016, including 200 new officers being hired so far to eliminate work-alone situations at 69 locations. Implementation of this initiative is on schedule. The CBSA has trained and deployed more than 900 armed officers across the country thereby enhancing the security of communities such as Abbotsford.

Technology has also become a critical CBSA tool. In addition to its use for receiving electronic shipment data, identifying travellers from biometrics, and searching cargo, technology is also being put to use for searching and acquiring evidence of criminal offences.

As international commerce and communications are now conducted largely through the use of computers and other electronic devices, a specialized group of investigators are trained in computer searching and evidence recovery to support investigations of commercial fraud.

Since child pornography has evolved from magazines and videotapes to computer files and DVDs, this also supports interdiction efforts by examining computers and other electronic devices at ports of entry, and it protects communities like Abbotsford.

Budget 2009 continues our strong track record of investment in border management with $80 million allocated to modernize and expand border facilities at four locations in Ontario and British Columbia, including Abbotsford.

Border security is a complex objective that is subject to the shifting tides of geopolitical tensions, international trade, travel and migration, advances in technology, and the increasing sophistication of criminal and terrorist elements.

We must continue to capitalize on the technology and risk management strategies that minimize border security risks while facilitating the efficient movement of goods and services and people.

The past several years have seen a tremendous change in how our border operates. The attacks of September 11, 2001 have had many consequences. They set the free world in pursuit of enhanced civic security that is sustainable in the context of our treasured liberties and economic prosperity.

In the face of unprecedented chaos and violence, the government has recognized the need for new strategies, new approaches and new tools with a palpable sense of urgency. That sense of urgency has not gone away for this government.

Too much is at stake if we do not get the border right. Smart border management is good business. It is good for Canada, it is good for Canadians, it is good for the people of Abbotsford, and it is good for the city of Abbotsford.

I am happy to support this motion by my colleague from Abbotsford. I urge the rest of our colleagues on all sides of the House to support this motion as well.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on debate on the changing of the name of the entry port of Huntingdon to Abbotsford-Huntingdon.

What we have here is an issue of a name and a place that simply have not caught up with the times. My hon. colleague, the member for Langley, was telling me that there are really only a few places and individuals who use the place name Huntingdon these days. It has been replaced with Abbotsford. That is why the member for Abbotsford brought this motion forward.

This is a pretty straightforward name change that reflects the changing times, the changing of place names and a changing society, quite frankly, in Canada. The intent is not simply to change the name entirely. The intent is a matter-of-fact practical solution to an issue that has become worrisome.

It is a town on the border between Canada and the United States. It is a port of entry and a border crossing. Tourists, friends and neighbours in the United States come north into Canada through that border point, and all of a sudden the signage they see says Abbotsford. When they go back to the U.S., all the signage they see says Abbotsford. Using the name Huntingdon for the entry port is no longer reasonable or practical for any reason.

The motion is a timely one and it speaks to some greater issues. There are a number of ports of entry into Canada from mainland United States and there are a number of ports of entry from the ocean.

On the east coast of Canada, in my home province of Nova Scotia, the port of Halifax is not dissimilar, although it is a seaport, one of the largest ice-free seaports and deepest harbours in North America. It is classified as one of the top five harbours in the world.

Halifax has the ability to be the gateway from eastern Canada to central Canada and the central United States in the same way that the port of entry for Abbotsford-Huntingdon has the ability to be the gateway into southeastern British Columbia and on into Langley, Vancouver Island, and certainly other areas.

The other issue that we should recognize is that particularly in Halifax there is opportunity. There is opportunity for increased trade and there is opportunity for increased traffic.

My hon. colleague talked about climate change. It should be clearly recognized that intermodal traffic by container ship is the least polluting form of traffic in the world. More freight can be moved more cheaply by container ship with fewer pollutants and less greenhouse gas production than by any other mode of travel in the world. Although we are talking about a specific issue on the west coast, it has a connection to the east coast.

The port of Halifax and the new port that has been discussed in the Strait of Canso, the port of Melford, are the two closest ports to continental Europe in North America. As well, through the Suez Canal, the port of Melford or the port of Halifax is closer to the Indian subcontinent than is the port of Vancouver. If one were to travel through the Suez Canal and across the North Atlantic, the closest port of entry into Canada from the Indian subcontinent would be Halifax. There is tremendous potential.

I made this argument years ago in this place. At that time we were looking at the beginning of the post-Panamax ships. These were the biggest container ships in the world that would no longer fit through the Suez Canal.

The previous government did not act on that. It allowed the bid for the post-Panamax ships to go to the city of New York. Halifax did not even bid on it. Nor did other ports in eastern Canada bid on it. It was a missed opportunity.

We do not want to miss this opportunity, going from British Columbia into the United States. We want to keep that border open. We want to ensure that it is marked appropriately. Signage and the ability for travellers to know exactly where they are going and the time it is going to take to get there is important not just for visitors but for trade.

If I could just go back to the port of Halifax and compare that. The ability for us to trade with the European common market, with the EU, the European Union as it is called today, with new markets, such as India, and the ability for Eastern Canada to become that same hub and gateway that western Canada, Vancouver and the port of Prince Rupert, is significant. We are 36 hours closer to the American heartland than any other port of entry in Eastern North America.

It has been pleasure for me to speak on this.