Senator W. David Angus

Monsieur le Président, Monsieur Beatty, distinguished participants in The Round Table Dialogue, chers amis et collègues, Ladies and Gentlemen,

Thank you Michael for such a generous introduction and to you and your colleagues at the Shipping Federation of Canada for inviting me to participate in this critical and timely dialogue on Maritime Security issues.

Suite à cette introduction, c'est évident que je ne suis pas étranger ni à l'industrie maritime canadienne en général ni au Port de Montréal en particulier.

Indeed, ladies and gentlemen, I feel very much at home here today, having been actively involved in one way or another with Canada's maritime sector and the Port of Montreal for well over 40 years.

During the mid-fifties I sailed in and out of St. Lawrence River Ports as an apprentice in The Canadian and British Merchant Marines. Then later, since 1963, as a Maritime lawyer, I have had the privilege of representing at one time or another a wide-ranging segment of the interests in Canada's Maritime industry, including:

Independent stevedoring contractors, individually and through their Interprovincial Association of Stevedoring Contractors;

Shipowners, operators and Charterers, both deepsea and lakes carriers. At one time, I was on retainer both with The Shipping Federation of Canada and the Canadian Shipowners= Association;

Tug owners and operators and their Industry Association ECTOA;

Shippers, receivers and cargo underwriters;

Grain companies and their related elevator companies;

The Canadian Wheat Board;

Ship's agents and husbands;

Governments and regulatory bodies, including Transport Canada, The Saint Lawrence Seaway Authority, various Port Authorities and Port Wardens;

Ship suppliers and chandlers;

Bunkering firms and oil companies;

Shipbuilding and Repair Yards;

Banks and other financial institutions lending to or otherwise supporting the industry.

Obviously, these interests are very diverse and basically "cover the waterfront"; so when I spoke out on issues, from time to time in the past, it was invariably from a specific interest's point of view. I mention this simply to set the stage for the points I wish to make today not on behalf of any specific interest group, but rather as a Canadian citizen and as a Member of the Canadian Senate to which I was fortunate to be appointed in 1993 by Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, who incidentally, I originally got to know well during the sixties when we together represented management interests before the Picard Inquiry into Labour Unrest in St. Lawrence River Ports. (But that is another story for another day!!)

During the 1980's I became aware of and interested in the need for more open and productive relationships between the public and the private sectors and I formed the strong view that the development of good public policy for Canada requires effective communication amongst and open and cooperative interchange between the key players in the nation's public and private sectors.

My belief became that without active input from the private sector, laws, regulations and policies developed in a bureaucratic/governmental vacuum can often be ineffectual and/or impractical and in some cases even unworkable. In essence, I became convinced that major input from people whose day-to-day activities are centred in the so-called "real world" is critical to the legislative and policy-making process. As President of the Canadian Maritime Law Association from 1989-92, I attempted to put this view into practice with the satisfying result there has since been a most open and productive relationship and dialogue between the CMLA and Transport Canada and other federal government departments and agencies.

And so it was that in 1993, after lengthy deliberation, I accepted Brian Mulroney's summons to the Senate, my thinking being that I had already enjoyed a fascinating and fruitful career in the law and should now attempt, at least on a part-time basis, "to make a difference" by actively participating in the development of Public Policy.

I should add that at the time, lawyer jokes were in vogue and were starting to get on my nerves as members of the noble profession were being put down constantly and often in a vulgar fashion. For example:

I thought that by going to Ottawa I might get away from this, but guess what? I found out very quickly that Senators were viewed just as poorly as or even worse than lawyers. At a dinner following my participation in a charity golf tournament where my playing partner had been hockey great Dennis Hull, Dennis was the guest speaker. In his opening remarks he quipped, "Today, I played with a Senator ; he was awake the whole time and, would you believe it, he kept his hands in his own pockets!!"

Needless to say, I had some initial misgivings. However, I soon found out that despite its questionable reputation amongst many Canadians, especially those from the West who were clamouring for a Triple E Senate, that the Senate is in fact a remarkable institution with the facilities, the resources and the vast potential, if used properly, to enhance legislation and public policy in this country. As a forum which studies Bills emanating from the House of Commons and applying "sober second thought" to their content and structure to ensure they are practical and workable and will accomplish what Cabinet intended, and no more (or less), the Senate makes an invaluable contribution. The Senate Committees, which are the heart and soul of the Senate are the most important means by which Senators contribute to public policy development. Not only do these Committees, there are presently 21 of them, provide a forum for examining proposed legislation, they also conduct thorough investigations and issue major Reports on a vast range of topics that affect Canadians in their daily lives. More often then not, this is done without fanfare or press coverage and in too many cases the public does not get the full story or flavour of what has been done and this is part of the reason the fine work of the Senate is often unknown to or at least misunderstood by Canadians at large.

The fact is, Senate Committees on average hold 400 meetings per year and devote over 800 hours to analyzing policy and reviewing the Government's legislative proposals. Drawing on expert opinion, ideas and information taken from some 1400 witnesses, Senate committees produce more than 100 Reports each year. These special Senate policy studies are authorized by the Senate on its own initiative and conducted and carried out by Senators quite independent of the Government. The Reports generally contain important recommendations to the Government as to necessary legislative or policy changes or the need for urgent new policy measures. These Reports can be both academic and prosaic on the one hand or practical, topical and critical of the Government on the other. These latter Reports are ignored by Governments at their own peril!!

Two such Reports are:

(1) The recent (February 2002) Report of the Standing Committee on National Security and Defence entitled "Canadian Security and Military Preparedness"; and

(2) The soon to be issued Report of the Standing Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce on "Our Shared Border: Facilitating the Movement of Goods and People".

Both these Reports are current and germane to your Round Table topic of today. Indeed, some of the panellists here actually appeared and gave evidence before the relevant Senate Committee in one or both of these studies.

The work of both these Committees was done largely following or as a result of the September 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon in the United States, events which have substantially changed all our lives and created a new paradigm for Maritime security and the efficient transportation of containerized cargo in international trade crossing the US/Canada border.

The facts determined by these two Senate studies and the recommendations contained in the Reports form the basis for my message to you this afternoon.

Ladies and gentlemen, whether we like it or not, the events of 9/11 and the subsequent all out War on Terrorism have profoundly changed our lives and the way we must conduct our businesses in the Maritime and international trading world.

As we did with previous events which brought changes to our lives and work environment, I think of the advent of containerization, computerization and globalization, we can and we must adapt to this change.

International terrorism, of course, is much more deadly than computers or the unitization of cargo. It threatens our very physical safety and security, and the necessary and inevitable consequences and reactions are threatening our established business practices and patterns of behaviour. There appears to be and there actually is certain understandable resistance to this. On the other hand, there is some good news in that suddenly clear attention and focus is being given to and substantial and necessary resources are being made available for dealing with issues and problems long overlooked, ignored or down-played by governments. Important to all of us is the sudden new and high priority being given by Canadian and American authorities alike to facilitating the safe movement of legitimate goods and people across our shared border and to the introduction of modern state of the art security measures to tighten up and enhance security at our seaports and airports.

Ladies and gentlemen, if we wish to remain safe, secure and free as individuals and productive, competitive and economically free as well, we must adapt to the radically changed post 9/11 environment. We should not bury our heads in the sand and say there is no problem. We must heed the warnings, make the necessary adjustments, even though initial extra cost and political consequences may seem to be involved.

Nous ne pouvons pas ignorer les problèmes. Nous devons faire face aux mises en garde et faire les ajustements nécessaires, même si des coûts importants et des conséquences politiques seront inévitables.

It is my respectful suggestion that if we are to continue to be free, secure and economically competitive, we must strike a balance between the new exigences of national security and our economic security. There is no need to over-react and exaggerate, but react and act we must, in a balanced way. We have the advanced technology , as well as other modern ways, means and methods to adapt.

Dues aux nouvelles exigences, je crois fortement, qu'afin de demeurer libre, sécure et économiquement compétitif, nous devons trouver un équilibre entre notre sécurité nationale et notre sécurité économique.

Our good friends, neighbours and allies to the South, the good people of the United States and their Government , are committed to and deadly serious about bringing terrorism to its knees, about preventing and obviating the risk of another September 11 event on their own soil. They have said they will take all necessary steps to prevent dangerous chemicals, anthrax, ebola,, nuclear objects or other instruments of mass destruction from crossing their borders into the USA. And they aren't kidding!! Ne faites pas d'erreurs, les Américains sont tout-à-fait sérieux et ils ont l'intention de prendre toutes les mesures nécessaires afin de prévenir une seconde tragédie comme celle du 11 septembre.

Has anybody here seen the tapes recovered from caves in Afghanistan, depicting Al Quaeda forces shooting at American icons such as the President, other political leaders as well as sports heroes and film stars? Once you see this horrifying footage, you will understand the depth of American's resolve.

So adapt we must or we will surely suffer negative economic consequences. In the field of ports and maritime security this is particularly relevant and I believe of interest to you all. For our ports, such as Halifax, Montreal and Vancouver to remain competitive and not lose traffic to places like Newark and Seattle, we need to become safer and more secure. We need to remove elements which could be conducive to terrorist organizations and we must invest in and employ the best available technology for inspecting, assessing and profiling people, cargoes, ships, containers, trucks and the like to provide the highest possible security. If we don't, we will surely lose out.

It is at times like these that we tend to remember those important sayings of our forefathers who pioneered democracy and defined not only the virtues of , but as well the high cost of freedom.

Perhaps the best known of these and appropriate in today's world is: "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty", words often attributed to Thomas Jefferson, but actually uttered by Wendell Phillips on January 28, 1852 in a speech before The Massachussetts Anti-Slavery Society.

It was Jefferson who wrote in 1787:

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

In the same vein, I am confident we were all inspired by the many moving phrases of the late John F. Kennedy in his Inaugural Address of January 20, 1961, including the following which I feel is particularly appropriate:

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty!"

Ladies and gentleman, I was very impressed indeed and fascinated by the presentations at this morning's Round Table. Clearly, much has already been done and other key measures are in process to address the security issues in your industry. The joint governmental initiatives by authorities in both Canada and the United States are encouraging and the involvement of the private sector in the development of policies and processes is of course gratifying to me as I consider it essential. Dialogues like this morning's can only help and expedite the change required.

But more must be done. Attitudes need to change. Our Government must do more than pay mere lip service to the pressing issues of security. It should commit fully to making the necessary studies and investigation and allocate the necessary funds and other resources to shore up security now.

This is not the time for the Canadian Government to waffle or dilly dally on critical issues of security, defence and cross border trade. Now is the time for action, leadership and cooperation with our allies. It's not the time to rest on our laurels, to be insular and to hide behind a "smoke-screen" of sovereignty. If we do, Canadians will surely pay dearly!

As mentioned earlier, the Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce, of which I am a Member, decided to conduct a study into what if any direct economic consequences there were from the events of 9/11. Our Hearings and deliberations are now complete and our Report will be tabled shortly. One of the ironies we determined was that the intense focus on border issues which resulted from the tragedy was in fact long overdue and was enthusiastically welcomed by Customs and Immigration officials and stake-holders in the cross-border trading sector.

It is very important, however, that we not assume that life has now returned to normal or that it is "business as usual" at the border, for it has not and is not, and we must not become complacent. Some of the problems encountered at the border prior to 11 September continue to exist and must be resolved in order that goods and people are able to move easily and efficiently across the shared Canada-U.S. border. If this is to occur, security must become a priority for the Canadian government to the level it is at for the U.S. government and programs and other measures designed to facilitate bilateral trade must be developed in this context. The strong link between security and trade must be recognized, and the proper balance struck between them. Trade will be facilitated and optimized only if there is confidence about border security and accordingly, security at our ports and other perimetre areas.