Mac Harb

[Supply, March 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc members still know only one tune. I do not think they listen to what we have to say. As my colleagues said earlier, federal-provincial relations are balanced in Canada.

I think we can say that the government's financial situation is better than it was before, and it makes us very proud. Our government has done a remarkable job in balancing our public finances. Caution and efficiency have paid off for the government.

Surpluses have been a long time coming. My colleagues from the Bloc have a short memory. We had deficits from 1981 until 1997. All in all, over $506 billion in deficits. In comparison, deficits from 1993 to 2000 totalled $35.8 billion. We have to continue to be careful.

Fortunately, this is something the governing party, the Liberal Party, has realized. My colleagues from the opposition parties and the Bloc in particular have a long way to go. We should not forget that the provinces also have surpluses, as well as a whole series of tax measures. They can collect personal income taxes, corporate taxes as well as sale taxes. They also get revenues from the lotteries, the sale of alcoholic beverages and the development of natural resources.

Transfers to the provinces also go to show how balanced our federation is. For instance, equalization payments help the provinces provide similar services to everyone in Canada. The federal government is assuming its responsibilities. It is providing all Canadians with equal opportunities through transfers and programs. These strategic investments are well targeted, something the public appreciates.

Under the various transfers, the provinces are free to set their own priorities. My colleagues from the Bloc are quoting those conclusions of the conference board that serve their own purposes. I would remind the House that this study shows that Quebec will have a deficit in 2002-03. However, on March 13, Le Soleil reported that the Quebec finance minister keeps saying that there will not be a deficit this year.

I am interested to know what the Bloc Quebecois thinks about this. Do my friends from the Bloc still totally support this study? We believe that a 20 year forecast is a very long period. Most forecasters do not go beyond two years in their studies. Moreover, the conference board assumptions are unrealistic. They take for granted that in the next 20 years there will be no recession, no tax cuts and no new spending. It is unrealistic.

One does not need an degree in economics to know that this is not going to happen. Things change.

The Bloc has joined with the Seguin commission to ask for the abolition of the Canada health and social transfer. Why abolish a program that is working so well? Quebec gets a lot from this program, from a financial as well as a social standpoint. Thanks to this program, the province has more money to invest in health and social programs, based on Quebecers' needs.

For example, in 2002-03, Quebec will get $8.5 billion, and during the next few years, this amount will go up. Following the agreement of September 11, 2000 , there will be a $5 billion increase over five years in the cash transfers through the Canada health and social transfer. Once again, the Quebec government will be able to use that money as it sees fit.

Furthermore, I believe my friends from the Bloc Quebecois should have a long term rather than a short term vision. However, it is true that the way things are going the Bloc might not be here for a long time.

If the provinces kept revenues from the GST, this would be a disadvantage for Quebec. Such a change would result in increasing inequities among the Canadian provinces. The Liberal Party has always wanted to ensure equal opportunities for all Canadians. Moreover, such a transfer would be difficult to apply to provinces other than Quebec.

My colleagues from the sovereignist party can campaign on this issue but I am sure they will not reach their objective. A consensus with the provinces outside Quebec is not possible.

With the Séguin commission and the resulting demands, my colleagues from the Bloc and the Parti Quebecois believe they have found a way to embarrass the federal government. They say they want to improve federal-provincial relations and, consequently, the federation. Come on. The Bloc improve the federation? No one is fooled. The prime objective of my colleagues of the Bloc and the separatists of the Parti Quebecois is to make Quebec a sovereign state. All they want is to dismantle Canada. This is their objective.

A new fiscal arrangement would help to increase the autonomy of the Quebec government and to put aside the Government of Canada. For my colleagues, the sovereignists, greater autonomy boils down to a greater independence and, consequently, to Quebec's sovereignty.

They should stop using roundabout means to reach their objective. They should tell the truth. They should be honest with Quebecers. They would soon realize that the members of the Bloc are not speaking on Quebec's behalf, but on their own.

I always heard that the Bloc was a leftist party, but what a surprise it is to hear its members talking about balance. They are not taking the economic element into consideration.

I will say this in another way. The federal government is constantly trying to maintain the balance in public finances and in the common good. The prosperity and happiness of a society are not measured only by the thickness of one's wallet. We have understood this well.

This is why we have developed various social initiatives such as the strategy against tobacco, the antiterrorist legislation, the anti-gang legislation, the new immigration legislation and the employment insurance reform.

I will stop here because I know an hour would not be enough for me to list everything. I believe that it must be understood that our government has an overall and long term vision, which makes the difference. This is certainly why the Liberals are in office and Canadians continue to put their faith in us. Can the Bloc Quebecois make the same claim? I do not think so.

My colleague spoke earlier about transfers and economic development. We have seen what the provinces and municipalities across the country can do in these areas. Finally, when it comes to transfers between the federal government and the provinces, the majority of these transfers, as I mentioned earlier, are in the fields of health and social programs.

Let us look at other things the federal government has accomplished thanks to the different ministers. Let us take the example of the Minister for International Trade. Thanks to his quite practical policies that show such extraordinary vision, we have managed to increase revenue levels in Canada. Before, international trade revenues accounted for around 25% of our GDP, now international trade revenues make up more than 45% of Canada's GDP.

These federal government policies yield direct benefits to the provinces, and also to Canadians, in the end, whether they be from Quebec or anywhere else in Canada.

Another issue. Let us take the example of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance's policy in the field of taxation. We have seen how federal prudence has led to extraordinary benefits, particularly when it comes to interest and inflation rates, which are very low now. Both of these federal fiscal policies benefit the provinces directly, and Canadians too, including Quebecers.

If we take these two examples alone, the government's international trade policy, which brings in lots of revenues to Canada, and the government's domestic fiscal policy, these two issues provide direct benefits to the provinces and to Canadians.

As regards confederation and the different areas, the provinces, including municipalities across Canada, have all of the means necessary to try to find opportunities for citizens in their province or municipality. It is not always entirely up to the federal government. When things go well, everyone is happy to take the federal government's money, but when there are problems, then they begin to blame the federal government.

The provincial, municipal and community levels all have their responsibilities. Finally, we should all take our responsibilities seriously. The provinces should take their responsibilities seriously too, and set up fiscal and economic policies that meet the needs of their citizens.

My colleague from the Canadian Alliance said that Alberta paid out much more money than it should. So they will be very glad to discuss federal transfer payments to the provinces. Mr. Harris, in Ontario, will probably be quite glad and will probably agree with my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois that we should discuss federal transfer payments.

That is not the way this federation was built. It is based on more solid ground than just transfer payments between the federal government and the provinces. This federation is based on equality for all citizens, on justice and on the feeling that we are at home throughout this country.

Examples abound. It is just never said that something is perfect. We say we keep striving for the ideal system. Canada is an ideal country. There is a good reason for the fact that, five years in a row, the UN said that Canada was the best country to live in.

I wonder why my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois have never realized how beautiful this country is. They have never come to their senses to tell us “We made a mistake”. We will forgive you. That is fine. Everybody makes mistakes. Nobody is perfect.

We are saying that we will do our utmost to build a Canada that is strong, that is fair and that provides equal opportunities for all. It is possible to be Quebecers, to believe in Quebec and in Canada. Let our colleagues rise and say “We love Canada, we want to build a strong country, a Canada that provides equal opportunities, a Canada that takes care of its people”. I guarantee that, on this side of the House, we will applaud. But saying that discussions will start all over between Canada and the provinces to resume an old battle will not meet the needs of Quebecers.

Let us go back to the nineties. Mr. Speaker, you were a member of this House then, as you are today. We remember the issue of federal transfers to the provinces. Had the cuts imposed by the Conservatives been maintained, next year and the year after that, there would have been no money at all transferred from the federal government to the provinces for health and education.

We went through difficult times, no doubt about that. Times were hard. We had a $42 billion deficit and a debt of more than $500 billion. Something had to be done.

As soon as we succeeded in having a surplus, in balancing the government's budget, we started investing in education and health. What is more, for the first time in modern Canadian history, the provinces were given something they did not have until then: certainty. When a transfer is made to the provinces, they can now plan for five years without any fear of federal government cuts. This is something that did not exist before. This has been accomplished through the leadership of this government and the ministers responsible for Human Resources Development, and others.

My colleagues should rise and applaud the work that has been done by the federal government, the leadership it has shown over the past nine years. They should say that this federation is one of the best in the world. I am certain that my colleagues on this side of the House will applaud them. This is the reason for the difficulty with this motion.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2001, March 15th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, in fairness I want to set the record straight. The government has made an unprecedented commitment to our military that previous governments have not been able to do, for whatever reasons. In fact it was this government that recognized the need to modernize and to support the needs of our Canadian military.

Let me run by my colleagues some of the things that were in the budget. I am not sure my colleagues have read the budget properly. I have a summary here of some of the items. The member talked about $200 million and I am talking about $7.7 billion for security funding. Let me tell my colleagues what we have put in specifically in order to support the military. We have put in $510 million to support the military. I do not know if my colleague is aware of that. We also have expanded the anti-terrorist capacity of our military. We invested an additional $119 million. In terms of supporting our military so it can combat issues such as chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear threats, there is an additional $513 million. For emergency preparedness we have committed $396 million as well as a contingency of $100 million. As far as we are concerned, that adds up to close to $1.7 billion.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2001, March 15th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, that is a very interesting question coming from a colleague who also has a municipal background. Sometimes I wonder whether it is an asset or a liability having that municipal background. I am sure in his case as well as in mine it is a wonderful background to have because we know firsthand what is important to our constituents, and that is bricks and mortar: to have a proper transportation system that works; to have policing that provides us with security; to have social programs, whether it is housing or social services, that work; to have hospitals that work; to have emergency rooms that work. All of that is almost like a micro type of arrangement of what we have at the national level.

The member asked a question about infrastructure and the importance of specific programs. Members may recall that one of our colleagues from Nepean, Beryl Gaffney, and I co-chaired the 1990 infrastructure task force initiated by our caucus at that time. We were in opposition then. We criss-crossed the country and met with many mayors as well as councillors. We came back with a report that to a large extent formed the basis of our very first infrastructure program the Liberal Government of Canada put to Canadians. That program has created thousands of jobs across the country, has responded to the needs of municipalities and has really acted as an economic stimulant at a time when not many economic stimulants were around, aside from those that were in the works.

I would say that not only has the government put in an additional $2 billion this year for strategic infrastructure, as my colleague has stated, but also as part of our new strategy on national security we have put in an additional $600 million that will go specifically to infrastructure around border crossing points in terms of preparing highways, preparing bridges and other types of infrastructure activities that are required.

Specifically for the $2 billion project that my colleague has spoken about, that will be absolutely marvellous for communities such as the one I represent. To cross from one end of this community to the next, it takes approximately 45 minutes at peak hours. That is a long time. We have a highway of only four lanes at best. There are six lanes in the middle of the city, but really it is only two lanes in communities outside the city. We are a community of close to one million people when we take in the suburbs. On the other side of the river we have an additional 700,000 people at least. In total it would be about 1.8 million people. Our communities would benefit greatly from a light rail system that would connect communities both east and west as well as north and south.

What a wonderful thing it would be if the communities on both sides of the river were to come together on this absolutely marvellous infrastructure program of $2 billion and submit one project for light rail in order to connect the communities east to west as well as north to south on both sides of the river, on the Outaouais side as well as the Ontario side. That would be a dream. I am sure that with the government commitment of $2 billion that dream could become a reality, therefore creating more jobs, responding to the needs of the community, protecting the environment and preparing the city to go into the next century fully equipped and energized in order to respond to the needs of its people.

These are the kinds of projects we see being repeated across the country. These are the kinds of initiatives the government has put before us and before Canadians. That is why I am exceptionally honoured and proud to be a part of this government and this regime and seeing those initiatives being implemented and being put before Canadians.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2001, March 15th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak to the legislation as part of the overall government budget and overall government agenda.

When the Minister of Finance presented his budget to the House it focused on two elements: the economic security of Canadians and the personal security of Canadians. They are the themes of the budget because they reflected the priorities of Canadians. When Canadians were asked to define the two most important issues concerning them, they outlined the questions of economic security and personal security.

I do not want to spend too much time talking about the economic front because today we are dealing mainly with the part of Bill C-49 that concerns the security component of the budget.

The government predicted economic growth in 2001-02 in the vicinity of 1.1% to 1.3%. If we look at the international and North American climates our forecasts are very objective and very well balanced. From all economic indicators we have seen so far we are not doing that bad at all. In fact we are doing a lot better than we forecasted.

It is important to note that after 28 years of deficit year after year and government after government missing their forecasts, this government was able to end the deficit. We were able to post close to $17 billion in surplus in the year 2001-02.

As well we were able to pay in excess of $36 billion on the national debt. We balanced our books. We were able to free in excess of $2.5 billion to $2.6 billion on an annual basis, money which otherwise would have gone to pay interest on the debt.

In addition, the government was able to do a tremendously positive thing with regard to interest rates and inflation. Canada has the lowest interest rate and the lowest inflation rate in close to 40 years.

All this came about without hurting the government's commitment to our social programs. On top of what I have mentioned the government has committed in excess of $100 billion in tax reductions. Canadians can see the benefits of good, sound government policies.

Canadians have told us they are exceptionally concerned about their personal security. That is why one component of the budget dealt with this issue very directly. The government has committed close to $7.7 billion over the next five years toward enhancing security for Canadians. Another $6.5 billion has been dedicated to securities and to the Canadian military. More than $1.2 billion were for initiatives designed to make Canada's borders more secure and efficient.

Let us look at some of the specific things the government has clearly stated. The approach of last year's budget was to ensure that security is paramount for Canadians and to ensure that the government has put more emphasis on increasing intelligence in policing, enhancing screening of arrivals at Canada's airports and border points, and to ensure that our people, both civilians and military, are better prepared for cases of emergencies.

On the intelligence and policing side the government has committed in excess of $1.6 billion over the next five years. Some of that money will go toward equipping and deploying more intelligence officers and frontline investigative personnel. This funding will go to federal departments and agencies including the RCMP and CSIS. The government has also provided resources to improve co-ordination among different law enforcement agencies in different parts of the country including the territories and to ensure that there is more sharing of intelligence between national and local security agencies.

The government is ensuring that we have more resources for marine security through greater funding for coastal surveillance and to strengthen the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada so we can deal with some of the offshore terrorist financing.

On the other front, that of the screening of entrants to Canada, the government has invested close to $1 billion to ensure better and more accurate screening of people who arrive on our shores. We will have more resources for detention and removal of those who arrive illegally, a quicker determination of refugee claimants and a system that is fraud resistant when it comes to people wanting to obtain visas or those who arrive in Canada with fake visas.

The third front is emergency preparedness and support for our military. The government has invested, as I said before, close to $1.6 billion. Some of that money will go to doubling the capacity of joint task force 2 which is doing a marvellous job right now in Afghanistan. Part of that money will go toward military funding, including support for participating in the international war on terrorism.

We have put more emphasis on enhancing the different networks to improve on the types of equipment and infrastructure systems our security agencies use. We have put more emphasis on protecting critical national infrastructure such as highway and airport facilities for water treatment, hydro systems and other infrastructure systems across the country.

One of the things that the government came forward with in budget 2001 was a new approach to air security. That is where Bill C-41 comes into the picture. The government has committed to allocate close to $2.2 billion over the next five years to make air travel more secure and to ensure security for Canadians who travel.

Some of the money will go to new air security measures such as armed undercover police officers on Canadian aircraft. The other day members of the opposition asked questions specifically to find out how many armed personnel would be on aircraft. The minister rightly said he would not tell them because those operations were supposed to be undercover and would continue to be undercover in many situations.

Some of the money will go toward training personnel at airports, screening passengers and carry-on luggage, state of the art explosives detection systems at Canadian airports, enhancing policing in airports, replacing aircraft cockpit doors to make them more secure, and enhancing security zones at the aircraft handling facilities on the tarmac.

These measures will be funded by a new air travel security charge to be paid by air travellers effective April 1, 2002, for travel in Canada. The cost of that is $12. That is what this whole debate seems to be about today. It seems to be focusing on the issue of $12, not on the issue of the importance of having a system that responds to the needs of Canadians.

If Canadians were asked whether or not as travellers they would mind paying the additional $12 for peace of mind that they would arrive at their destination safely, the answer from the vast majority of Canadians would be an unequivocal yes.

The bill would provide key air transport security services that are consistent and wholly integrated across the country. As well, it would provide an enhanced security performance standard in services across the country. Bill C-49 sets out a comprehensive strategy that responds to the needs of Canadians.

Bill C-49 would also see the establishment of an authority. That authority would first be responsible for the effective and efficient screening of people and their belongings that access aircraft or restricted areas through designated screening points at aerodromes and regulations.

One responsibility of the authority would be to ensure a highly visible role to reassure all Canadians of the Government of Canada's commitment to security in the air transportation system. It would also be responsible for screening duties which would be carried out by a stable workforce of people with the right skills and equipment. Another part of its responsibility would be to ensure consistency and the seamless delivery of screening across Canada. It would also be responsible for carrying out other security functions as the Minister of Transport may assign on behalf of Canadians.

I do not really understand the fuss being made by my colleagues. Is it the $12 issue or other issues that are bothersome to them? Having heard what I had to say on this issue, it is my hope we will see unanimity in the House in order to pass this legislation as efficiently as possible so that it can go to the other house and become law. Then Canadians would have the peace of mind they have asked for and we would respond to the priorities they have identified not only over the past few months but over the past year or so.

Let us make no mistake about it. September 11 was a tragic event of great proportion. Through this legislation the government is merely responding to what Canadians have asked it to do. I am pleased to have added my voice to the voices of wisdom of my colleagues on both sides of the House and to support and congratulate the Minister of Transport on this wonderful initiative. It is my hope that it will be passed through the House as quickly as possible and become law.

[Access to Information, March 15th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Often the minister has spoken about the importance of access to information and balancing that with the privacy rights of the individual.

Could the minister tell the House what the obligations of ministers are when it comes to their expense records and the release of those records?

[Wallace Shute, March 15th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the life of a dear friend and a constituent, Dr. Wallace Shute. Dr. Shute was an exemplary Canadian citizen whose medical and literary contributions are recognized in Canada and throughout the world.

Dr. Shute began his lengthy and distinguished medical career in the field of gynecology as an army medical officer. His most outstanding accomplishment was the design and development of the Shute parallel obstetrical forceps. Designed to significantly reduce harm to both mother and child, the Shute forceps represented the first major change in forceps construction in over 400 years. In addition to his scientific successes, Dr. Shute was a true renaissance man as a published author, poet and painter. Dr. Shute was pre-deceased by his wife Betty.

I offer my sincere condolences to his son Christopher, his daughter Joan and his granddaughters Megan and Seonaid.

[National Defence, March 13th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are very concerned about the welfare of our troops in the situation in Afghanistan. The Minister of National Defence just held a press conference on Anaconda and Harpoon.

I want to ask the minister if he could give the House more details on the operation in these areas.

[Point of Order, March 12th, 2002]

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.

[Point of Order, March 12th, 2002]

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.

[Point of Order, March 12th, 2002]

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.