How many RCMP are at the Vancouver Port? The Reality -- Hansard: Terrorism, Transport, Justice, Sponsorship Program

RCMP port probe findings a PR win for Hells Angels Mike Howell-Staff writer

The Hells Angels motorcycle club doesn't control the Vancouver port or its unions, despite public and "police universe" perceptions to the contrary, says a high-ranking RCMP inspector.

Insp. Doug Kiloh, the major case manager for marine security in Vancouver, said his team of investigators reached the conclusion within the last year. The admission, a major public relations victory for the Hells Angels, is based on an investigation to "confirm or refute" the perception the club is running the port, Kiloh said. [. . . . ]

Search: whether investigators reviewed the organized crime unit's report, findings do not mean, recently arrested, Asked if




Is there any discrepancy between what this inspector says and what the Senate found?



How many RCMP at the Vancouver port?

"Where will the next shock come from? It may again descend from the air, but it is just as likely to come from the sea. Perhaps from a container, given that only a small percentage of containers are searched at U.S. or Canadian ports. Or, through the hijacking of a commercial vessel. Or, loaded onto small vessels, the kind that smugglers have used successfully for centuries to unload in remote coves and the neglected smaller ports that dot Canada's coastlines."

-- October 2003: Canada's Senate Committee on National Security and Defence considers the next terrorist strike on North America

The Port Reality

Everything's OK at the ports? -- They have 350 police at Port of Rotterdam- how many here?

Canadian Security Guide Book 2005 EDITION An Update of Security Problems in Search of Solutions -- Vulnerable Ports & Organized Crime in Ports CHAPTER 6 -- Ports

Problem 1: Vulnerable Ports

HIGH PRIORITY

Canada’s ports are insecure and the extent of their vulnerability to crime makes them a target for terrorists. The Organized Crime Agency of British Columbia has found that there are 48 members or associates of the Hells Angels working on Vancouver’s docks. The Agency’s report, quoted in the Globe and Mail, “identifies members of East European, Indo-Canadian, Columbian, Mexican [and] triad organized-crime syndicates working on the port.” An even greater concern is the so-called ‘unholy alliance’ between organized crime and terrorist networks.[66]

[. . . . ] (Report: Canadian Security and Military Preparedness, February 2002, #8, The Committee reiterated the need for an inquiry in Canada’s Coastlines: The Longest Under-Defended Borders in the World, October 2003, recommendations #4.2) [. . . . ]

Problem 2: Organized Crime in Ports

HIGH PRIORITY

The presence of organized crime in Canada’s ports and airports leaves Canada’s security perimeter vulnerable to both smuggling and terrorist infiltration. The Committee heard in 2002 that an estimated 15% of longshoremen and 36% of checkers at the Port of Montreal have criminal records, that out of a sample of 500 longshoremen at the Port of Halifax, 39% had criminal records, and that 28 out of a sample of 51 workers at the Port of Charlottetown (almost 54%) had criminal records.[67] [. . . . ]

On guard for thee: the state of our coastal defence -- The new enemy has no face or flag Ken MacQueen, Mar. 8, 05

Canada has almost 250,000 km of coast, some 11 million sq. km of ocean territory -- and a defence capability that offers little comfort to its closest neighbour and ally. Reversing this perception has become a belated federal priority, which may explain why a binational flotilla of ships with big guns churned the waters off the West Coast the very February day federal Finance Minister Ralph Goodale boosted defence spending in the Liberal government's budget. The potential influx of illegal migrants, smugglers and extremists is not just a domestic concern. Since the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, no one cares as passionately about the defence of Canada as does the United States of America. [. . . . ]

Hansard: Terrorism, Transport, Justice, Sponsorship Program

Hansard Mar.8/2005-Question Period -- Terrorism

Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday CSIS director Jim Judd told a Senate committee that many veterans of terrorist training camps currently live in Canada. While not specifying how many terrorist suspects were in the country, Mr. Judd said that the number has three digits. He also said that terrorism is a very real threat to our national security. He went on to say that Canadian terrorists are bolstering the ranks of terrorists currently fighting in Iraq.

Clearly the government has no idea how many terrorists continue to be active, slipping in and out of Canada.

Could the minister simply state the number of terrorists active in Canada? Has it increased or decreased since 9/11?

Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, I never speak in relation to operational matters surrounding an agency like CSIS. That would be singularly inappropriate.

What I can do is reassure the hon. member that within CSIS, within the RCMP, within the Canada Border Services Agency, within my department and across other departments concerned with the security and safety of Canadians, we are doing absolutely everything we can to ensure we identify high risk people, we identify high risk goods and we ensure the collective--

The Speaker: The hon. member for Central Nova.

Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this is really no laughing matter. I am only asking the minister to tell us whether the number of terrorists in Canada is going up or down. Since 9/11, the government clearly has not learned the horrible lessons necessary for prevention.

It took the government years to pass legislation that would enable terrorist checks on passenger lists. Four years after 9/11, the government still does not have an adequate system in place, cross-referencing, checking, sharing information of known terrorists travelling by air.

According to the director, there is a lack of equipment and criteria. This risks lives. Why has the government failed to put in place these important, basic tools necessary--

The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Transport.

Hon. Jean Lapierre (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that Canada has one of the best systems in the world. We are controlling the access. We are ensuring that our airports are secure and most of our transportation systems.

We have spent over $8 billion since 9/11. Some people on the member's side say that it costs too much, but we want to ensure that we have the most secure transportation system in the world, and we do.

* * *

Transport

Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, CPC): Mr. Speaker, experts have described the control measures proposed by the Liberal government for Canadian ports as inadequate. Most controllers, crane operators, lift operators and flatbed truck drivers will not be checked under the proposed changes. However, background checks are done of airport employees.

How does the Minister of Transport justify having one standard for airports and another standard for ports?

Hon. Jean Lapierre (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is clear. We have started to set up regulated areas in airports and we have done background checks on airport employees. We are now considering doing the exact same thing—not a double standard, but the exact same thing—in Canada's ports.

We are going to start in three ports: Halifax, Montreal and Vancouver, but eventually all ports in Canada will be controlled the same way.

[English]

Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it has been three and a half years since 9/11 and the government has had the opportunity to get its act together with respect to Canada's ports of entry.

Organized criminals should not be working at our ports, and the Conservative Party believes in strong measures to ensure that does not happen. The government is putting forward certain elements that will cause an undue invasion of privacy for longshoremen at our ports rather than dealing with organized criminals in an effective way.

Why has it taken three and a half years since 9/11 for the government to get its act together to put forward real measures to secure our ports rather than harassing longshoremen with undue security--

The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Transport.

Hon. Jean Lapierre (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe my ears. The first thing we have to do is background checks. The member wants us to have secure ports and he is against background checks. What does he want after all?

* * *

Justice

Ms. Belinda Stronach (Newmarket—Aurora, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on the weekend the New York Times reported that the marijuana grow op industry and criminal drug trafficking across the border were huge security concerns for the United States. In B.C. alone it is a $7 billion business.

However, the Prime Minister and that party continue to play fast and loose with the national interest by talking about decriminalizing and now even legalizing marijuana. Once again the Prime Minister is taking the country in the wrong direction.

Will the Prime Minister get focused, look at the cost to our economy and withdraw the bill to decriminalize marijuana?

Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, regrettably, it is the hon. member opposite who is playing fast and loose with the facts. If we look at the report from which she is speaking, it says that the big picture in terms of cross-border cooperation is certainly encouraging and that Canadian and U.S. law enforcement officials have dismantled major criminal industry operations.

What we intend to do with our proposed legislation, if they pass it, is to combat those grow ops.

Ms. Belinda Stronach (Newmarket—Aurora, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the government are ignoring warnings from the U.S. ambassador that there will be consequences resulting from decriminalization causing costly cross-border delays.

Apparently the Prime Minister does not believe the senior U.S. enforcement official quoted in the New York Times who said that the criminal situation was, “getting worse and worse and we need to address it at every level”.

Is the Prime Minister willing to risk Canadian economic interest by proceeding with this misguided bill to decriminalize marijuana?

Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again what was quoted were the words of an academic on the American report. The report acknowledges that the vast majority of illicit drugs come from South America and Mexico and that there is full cooperation between Canadian and U.S. law enforcement authorities.

* * *

Sponsorship Program

Mr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have heard some strange fishing tales over the years, but this one is a whopper. Jean Lafleur takes Liberal buddies fishing and buys them expensive equipment, but then forgets who he is in the boat with. We might expect a little exaggeration about the size of the catch, but Canadians are on the hook for these trips.

We know that former Liberal cabinet minister Martin Cauchon received gifts from Lafleur. Will the Prime Minister tell us how many other Liberal cabinet ministers benefited from Lafleur's generosity with taxpayers' money?

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker--

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Speaker: It is clear that the Minister of Public Works and Government Services is becoming increasingly popular in the House, but we must be able to hear his answer, all the cheers notwithstanding.

The Minister of Public Works and Government Services has the floor and we will have a little order so we can hear his answer. Order, please.

Hon. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, what is obvious is that without Gomery testimony the hon. member opposite and many of his colleagues are incapable of asking any real questions that are important to the future of the country. [my emphasis, NJC]

I would urge them to stop in fact commenting on the daily testimony at the Gomery commission and to hire some really good researchers to write better questions for them so that they can stand in the House of Commons, address the issues that are of real importance to Canadians, and let Justice Gomery do his work. [I believe Minister MacLellan has used those ssame words previously. NJC ]

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Jean Lafleur received contracts worth $30 million. Today we learn that he contributed $47,000 to the Liberal Party fund. Add to that the numerous gifts he gave his Liberal friends courtesy of the taxpayer.

When is the Prime Minister and leader of the Liberal Party going to return the tens of thousands of dollars improperly received by his party from Jean Lafleur?

[English]

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again we have been completely clear that if funds have been received by the party through means that are inappropriate, those funds will be returned to the government.

The fact is that we will not be able to address these issues in a thorough manner and an appropriate way until Justice Gomery has completed his work. I would urge the hon. member to have some patience and ask him to respect the independence of a judicial inquiry, and allow Justice Gomery to do the very important work on behalf of all of us and all Canadians as he continues in that process. [. . . . ]

[All emphasis is mine. NJC