Peter MacKay

[Supply, March 12th, 2002]

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

[Supply, March 12th, 2002]

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

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

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

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

[Supply, March 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the supply day motion which I moved, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton North. I would indicate to the Chair initially that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member.

I want to recognize the invaluable work that she and others, including Senator Lowell Murray of the other place, have done in moving forward on issues of parliamentary democracy and reforming the way in which we operate in this place in such a way that we could bring about greater accountability and responsibility, not just on the part of the government, but on the part of all parliamentarians by raising the level of debate, the degree of participation and the pure and simple degree of democracy that is at work in this important institution.

This supply day motion condemns and points out that the Liberal government is failing on a number of fronts. It is failing with respect to the security measures that it has implemented, not only post-September 11 of last year, but also with respect to the level of democracy at work in this important institution.

The government has had a strong and destructive hand in dismantling a number of important institutions not the least of which is this very House of Commons.

What I am speaking of in more pointed and specific terms is the dismantling of Canada's ports police. That decision was taken specifically in 1997 but brought about almost immediately. The government put in place a plan after its election in 1993 to starve off or choke out the resources, the importance and the relevance of Canada's ports police.

A similar effort was taken toward our Canadian military and we have seen the costs associated with that. We have now seen what I view and what others see, including a Senate report which was published last week, as a great vulnerability in Canada's ports. There is a great deal of threat that now exists with regard to that water point of entry which makes up an important part of this country's boundaries.

If individuals of nefarious intent wish to bring contraband material, illegal migrants, or explosives of any sort into this country today, clearly their least likely opportunity is at a border crossing or at an airport. Sadly, and I do not say this to be alarmist or to in any way be pessimistic about any future threat to Canada, our borders on the water are clearly a vulnerable and virtually unpatrolled entity at this time.

This factor has been contributed to greatly by the ill-fated and unsubstantiated decision taken by the government to disband Canada's ports police. It has been coupled and aggravated by budget cuts to Canada's coast guard where it is unable to patrol our waters to a large degree. We have currently deployed over 50% of our naval capacity, therefore again, leaving our coastal waters and ports vulnerable to any sort of attack or attempt to bring materials into this country.

The Progressive Conservative democratic coalition has been at the forefront of the security debate for some time. While the Liberal government has, post-September 11, tried to put on a brave face by telling Canadians that everything was okay, that everything would be fine, we in the coalition have developed a comprehensive border security and management plan which would enhance the security and safety of Canadians across the country.

It is clear and it has been stated many times in this Chamber and elsewhere that we share the longest undefended border with the United States of America. It is also clear that at this time in world history the United States appears to be the target of much of the aggression felt by other corridors in the world.

Hundreds of billions of dollars in goods and services travel between our countries each year. Without a comprehensive border management plan which deals specifically with all aspects of border management, including ports, the safety of Canadians could be jeopardized and trade with our partners to the south would be significantly damaged.

I would suggest, given the preparations and the very vigorous attempts undertaken by our American cousins to get their ship in order with respect to security, that in the very near future they will be turning their attention to Canada and assessing our security and our ability to give guarantees that goods and services that come into our country will not leave them susceptible to some sort of attack.

I come from the east coast, where very often it is a common sight to see American warships in the port of Halifax or off the coast of the maritimes. That very fact, I would suggest, is something that has to be very prevalent in our preparations and in our attempts to secure our ports and our coastal borders. Similarly, there has been an increase in cruise line traffic wherein American citizens and citizens from all points come to Canada through our ports. Sadly, there have been past experiences and tragic events outside of Canada where American citizens have been targeted while outside the United States.

This is an alarming situation that has been brought forward, not just by members of the opposition, but in an extremely comprehensive report, published last week, from the Senate committee on national security and defence. I will quote from that Senate report in the section dealing specifically with ports. It states that in the committee's judgment “inadequate levels of security at entry ports to our country, deficiencies in intelligence capabilities and emergency preparedness capacity that has only recently begun to shift into gear, constitute a threat both to Canadians' economic and physical well-being”.

The report goes on, and I am referencing specifically the subject of organized crime that is active and operating in increasingly alarming rates at our ports, to state: “the security breaches encouraged by organized as well as petty criminals at Canada's ports are offered enhanced opportunities to would-be terrorists....Lax security at Canadian ports constitutes a threat to both the security and well-being of Canadians”.

This is extremely worrisome given the volatility of this age we are now living in. We have a very active and notorious threat of organized crime, and it is not just the traditional mafioso. We know that eastern block mafia and organized crime are becoming very active. On the west coast, in Vancouver, we see Asian gangs that are very active in the ports of that region of the country.

Of course it is not limited to our water points of entry. Airports and the border also play a big part in this overall strategy that must be undertaken and must be guarded very vigilantly by the government. In fact, this is why we are taking this opportunity to engage in this debate, to inform Canadians, to bring to the forefront of the House of Commons this issue of what challenges face the government and the country as a whole.

Sadly, these concerns and the concerns of Canadians who have taken the opportunity to question the government's policy seem to have fallen on deaf ears, partly, I would suggest, because of the structure that is in place surrounding democracy. Even the opportunity we have to pose questions is becoming more and more limited; witness the decision of the government to shut down further discussions on the budget yesterday, the seventy-fifth time in the regime of the government that it has used closure or time allocation. That is hardly consistent with a democratic institution.

I want to focus a little further on the issue of ports. In so doing I am referencing a very telling and, I would say, in some respects a foretelling document, which was published out of an international workshop dealing with airport and seaport police that occurred in March 1995. The report spoke of the privatization of police.

The Hon. René J. Marin said this with respect to municipal police taking over the role of ports police:

It is a reckless obsession with cost cutting and the disregard for the potential risk. Not insuring your personal property is a saving but we do not take the risk; it is simply not prudent.

He goes on to discuss the shortcomings in the ability of police, both municipal and RCMP, to do the very specialized job of ports police in this country.

I note my time is up. I hope that all members will engage in this debate and that we will receive some assurances from the government that greater prudence and effort will be taken to secure Canada's borders and ports of entry.

[Points of Order, March 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Prince George--Bulkley Valley ignores the fact that disputes sometimes arise around this place and I know that may come as a shock to many. We are in a situation now where it has been decided that this supply day motion is votable.

As my colleague from the NDP suggested, this is not an issue of siding with one party over another. This is a decision that is consistent with the standing orders and the rules of precedent. There is no precedent here. It is simply alarmist and untrue to say that all agreements are off and that this place will fall into chaos.

[Points of Order, March 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, there has been no meeting of the House leaders nor has there been a request for one. I would suggest that on previous occasions, such as when we were making submissions about the status of this party in the House, when I attempted to secure a meeting of the House leaders with the now Leader of the Opposition, there was absolutely no effort and no co-operation.

There has been no approach or attempt whatsoever to convene a House leaders meeting. I was not able to glean from your suggestion and your ruling yesterday as to who should initiate such a meeting.

[Points of Order, March 12th, 2002]

It is actually porcine, Mr. Speaker.

My colleague from the Bloc Quebecois refers to the burden of proof, and in essence I think their suggesting that it should be a reverse onus. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, you made a ruling. I suggest there is no ability to simply reverse that ruling now based on a dispute over whether in fact there was an agreement or not.

My NDP colleague says that it only used one votable supply day and it had another supply day that it could have deemed votable. We were in the exact same position. I would suggest that we chose to make this day votable in the understanding that we would have another votable day before parliament recessed in the summer.

With respect to the shortened supply day, that was in fact the last time we had this discussion. It was during that shortened supply day that there was an attempt by the official opposition to limit the number of days the PC Party would receive. At that time there were discussions.

Since that time, I would suggest they have simply acquiesced, suggesting that somehow everything was agreed to, that we could simply forgo this issue of how many supply days there were and shorten the number of days upon, which the official opposition and the other House leaders are now maintaining was the agreement. My submission is there was no agreement. I went to the trouble of checking any correspondence that I might have in my office and speaking with members of my staff who were present at every House leader meeting that I attended. I am afraid that this is down to an issue of who said what.

I resent that somehow my integrity is being impugned because I am trying to create mischief or I am somehow trying to get something that this party is not entitled to. I would suggest that what we are doing at this point is simply eating up time and beating the clock, much to the benefit and delight of the government. I find it really perverse.

I know from previous conversations that the efforts of members of the various parties here, the second, third and fourth parties, who are now training their guns on the fifth party would be far better spent devoting their time discussing this very relevant supply day in criticizing the government on its performance when it comes to security. Instead, the true priority of the temporary House leader of the Alliance Party comes out here in directing his attention toward a party I guess he feels quite threatened by.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that your original ruling should stand. There is no new evidence before you that would reverse that decision. In fact the original references to the standing orders and to the rules of engagement in the House of Commons should be applied and respected.

[Points of Order, March 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the rather sanctimonious and righteous comments directed at myself and members of the coalition. I have to take issue with much of what has been said.

I am quite surprised frankly at my colleague from the NDP and some of his commentary, but perhaps I should not be. I think there is another motivation here that is obviously at work. I need not go into detail on that, but clearly the correspondence that you have in your possession, Mr. Speaker, indicates that there was no agreement. I took the step of putting it in writing, therefore leaving a paper trail in anticipation that something like this might happen.

There is some irony obviously, and I need not point it out, but the member who originally made the request is now sitting as part of the coalition. There is almost an interest against self-interest here.

Having referred directly to the member from the NDP, I guess I should mention, and I use these words cautiously, my colleague from the Alliance, and I guess there is an old expression that comes to mind “You don't expect more than a grunt from a pig”. I take great umbrage with his comments and his belittlement of our party. In the context of this, here we are now discussing this issue for 45 minutes on an opposition supply day--

[Supply, March 12th, 2002]

moved:

That this House condemn the government for its failure to implement a national security policy to address the broad range of security issues, including those at Canadian ports of entry and borders, and call on the government to reassert Parliament’s relevance in these and other public policy issues.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2001, March 11th, 2002]

The ports police.

[Points of Order, March 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I commend you on your ruling.

I was going to reference the letters. You have already referenced the fact that there was no agreement between House leaders.

The interim House leader for the Canadian Alliance Party brought this matter before the House in a rather clandestine way. There was no notice given, but that is to be expected. The rather acerbic comments that he has put forward really do not bode well for any future agreement.

This issue ties into another larger issue you are aware of and on which you have also ruled. That is the fact that the coalition now has 19 members, members of the Democratic Representative caucus and members of the Conservative caucus. It was different when the original arrangement was--