Bill C-42 (Historical)

Public Safety Act

An Act to amend certain Acts of Canada, and to enact measures for implementing the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, in order to enhance public safety

Combating Terrorism Act

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak about the issues raised by Bill S-7. However, I would first like to offer my condolences to the families of the Boston Marathon victims and express my support for this extraordinarily resilient community.

Terrorism is a horrible thing, and we need a responsible approach to combat it without losing what defines us as a society. When Osama bin Laden launched the attack on the World Trade Center in 2001, he said that he wanted the North American way of life to disappear forever.

Since those attacks, Western countries have lost a little bit of their candour, and we have had to face our own limitations. At the centre of the lifestyle we share with our American neighbours is the rule of law and the civil liberties enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These social markers are at the heart of Canadian identity, and we must protect them as our most precious treasure, because if we willingly abandon our fundamental rights, then what is the point of combatting terrorism?

This is the main question behind my opposition to Bill S-7. In my opinion, this bill is ineffective and pointless in the fight against terrorism and it directly threatens my constituents' freedom.

We all know that Bill C-36 was rushed through in 2001 following the attacks on New York, which made a deep impression on our minds. Who does not remember those events, even 12 years later? Yet very few people remember Bill C-42, which allowed the government to declare temporary military zones in which fundamental freedoms were suspended. This millennium opened with a new interpretation of our most fundamental freedoms.

Why this aside when talking about Bill S-7? It is simply to show the House the risks of passing a bill such as this one in a time of emotional distress.

What happened in Boston has had an effect on all of us, but if Bill S-7 was so urgent, why did the Conservatives wait until now to introduce it? If I did not trust in the good faith of the members opposite, I would be tempted to say that they are trying to use this tragedy to conclude the debate on Bill S-7 so that they never have to hear about freedom of expression within their own caucus again.

Among other things, Bill S-7 would reinstate sunset provisions contained in Bill C-36, which expired in 2011. That is the case for recognizance powers, which the government is trying to put back on the table for no apparent reason. Other provisions, such as investigative hearings, are cause for concern.

The fact that these provisions were not applied between 2001 and 2007 does not seem to be of great concern to this government. Moreover, with respect to recognizance powers, the Conservatives insisted at report stage that this provision apply to individuals who are not suspected of conducting terrorist activities.

In summary, with Bill C-36, we introduced the idea of preventive detention and provisional judgments grounded in mere suspicion. Is there anyone here who wants to be the object of such suspicion? Bill S-7 goes even further. It reintroduces a sunset clause for an obvious purpose and, moreover, it tries to apply the provision to people who are not even suspected of being terrorists. It is not a mistake: the broad scope of the provision is intentional.

What are we doing? Are we going to put people in jail on the grounds of a suspected suspicion? I am sorry, but that is not the democracy in which I want my grandchildren to grow up. Suspending an individual's freedom because of a suspicion is very arbitrary. No longer requiring this suspicion would be utter madness. Furthermore, this provision could result in 12 months of preventive detention, 12 months of imprisonment without a conviction. What has happened to Canada?

The reading of Bill S-7 raises questions for me that I must ask. If the government wants to extend an anti-terrorist provision not only to terrorists, but also to those suspected of terrorism and, basically, everyone in general, where is this all leading to?

Anti-terrorism legislation like this is not worthy of a state governed by the rule of law. It is not actually used anyway, and our Criminal Code has up to now proved to be adequate for tracking down terrorists. With this type of legislation, we are opening the door to broader applications, which we are already seeing in Bill S-7.

Earlier, I was talking about Bill C-36 and Bill C-42. They have not been useful in protecting Canada from terrorism. The behaviour of our forces of law and order deteriorated as a result.

If memory serves, Bill C-42 was used when the government declared the community of Kananaskis to be under military jurisdiction for a G8 economic meeting in 2002. Who were the terrorists? Al-Qaeda, or the global justice movement? Bill C-36 may not have been able to defend the country, but it sure got the authorities all worked up in 2010 during the notorious “Torontonamo”, when the city centre was locked down and $1 billion was spent on security for a simple G8 meeting on the economy. The result was 1,000 Canadians imprisoned and convicted with no evidence, and civil liberties taken away, first inside the security perimeter, then around it, and finally all over the city.

If the authorities feel that they can act like that at a simple demonstration about the economy, what will they do in other situations? I firmly believe that anti-terrorist laws give quite the wrong message to our forces of law and order. “Torontonamo” was strongly criticized in official government reports, but the harm was done. How many other accidents like that are we going to have to deal with before we realize that anti-terrorist legislation can become “anti-Canadian” legislation?

If the Conservative government really wanted to improve security in Canada, why did it cut the budget of our border intelligence unit by half? Why did it end a program designed to recruit more police officers in our communities, and why did it abolish the position of Inspector General of the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service?

Furthermore, the NDP proposed a number of amendments that would have made Bill S-7, if not satisfactory, at least tolerable. But the Conservatives rejected all of our amendments. So we have to learn to live with investigative hearings, a technique worthy of medieval witch hunts, that could well pervert our justice system. Rather than confronting the potential threats hanging over our country, the Conservatives seem to be more interested in using them to significantly change the nature of justice in this country.

In my opinion, Bill S-7 is poorly designed and does not add anything substantial to the Criminal Code, other than the potential for misuse and abuse that we will all regret one day. Bill S-7 should be examined much more carefully before it is passed, since the issues this bill raises are much too important to be left to the whim of the government in power.

Violence against Women

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, let me try to put the question more directly then.

We have had from the government a string of anti-terrorism bills, Bill C-36, Bill C-42, Bill C-44 and Bill C-55. The government spends millions of dollars fighting terrorism yet women in this country live with violence every minute of their lives. The government refuses to make the issues pertaining to women in abusive relationships a priority.

My question is, where is the money to protect women and for public security for women in violent situations? Where is a national strategy on domestic violence against women?

Public Safety Act, 2002

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I had the opportunity to speak earlier today when we were not discussing the amendment now before us, and I had a few more things to say. I am happy that our last amendment incorporates things said by Amnesty International. This is not without insignificance, in the current context. Perhaps it can enlighten us before we proceeed any further with consideration of the bill before us.

Bill C-55 is a new version of a bill that was even worse initially, that is Bill C-42. Today, a certain amount of time has gone by since September 11, so that we can now better assess things. As more time goes by, we will be able to determine what we must do even better.

In my opinion, we must first ask this question: would we have thought of passing measures such as those in Bill C-55 this time last year? Certainly not. Have things changed since September 11? Yes, of course. But nothing justifies the current panic and psychosis. That is what Amnesty International is saying.

This is what we find in the newspapers. In the Journal de Montréal , Michel C. Auger writes:

Almost everywhere in the world, national security and the war against terrorism are becoming the best excuses to violate fundamental human rights.

It is disturbing to see such a tendency in many countries. It is not unique to this government. What is shameful is that we find the same tendency in our government in Ottawa, that is possibly to encourage abuse or create a climate that could lead to further measures. People wanted more security. After September 11, they felt very insecure, but not to the point of violating some fundamental rights as we are doing now.

We see it again today in Le Devoir . The editorial is entitled “Security versus freedom”. When we have to ask ourselves these types of questions, it means that there is a problem with what is being done here and we really have to think about it.

Few members on that side of the House addressed this issue today. The member from Mount Royal did it in the media but his colleagues remained silent throughout the day. Their silence disturbs me. We do not know their views, their positions in this important debate for our society. Our role is to step back as much as possible before passing these kinds of legislation, which will put so much power in the hands of a minister. It is all the more worrisome, members will agree, when this minister's competence is questionable. We have had these kinds of ministers throughout history and there will be more of them.

I do not have any problem with ministers having powers in a number of areas, but when these powers have an impact on fundamental freedoms, this is going too far. A minister is given the ability to act without following the usual procedure whereby a whole series of assessments is done before any legislation is passed. The problem with these powers is that they are often exercised in an atmosphere of sheer panic.

For example, one would never think of holding a debate here on something like the death penalty two days after some heinous crime. Often, government members are critical of the Canadian Alliance for using events in the news to make a dramatic plea for a tougher criminal code. They are doing exactly the same thing by giving themselves these powers in the wake of September 11. That is what we are seeing right now, and we must say “Enough is enough”.

Another thing that worries me is the constant tendency of the government to almost blindly follow the lead of the Americans in everything. Canada never stands out from the Americans in any original way. It is all very fine and well for us to have common standards on a certain number of things, but we are always falling in with what they want.

If the last federal budgets had been prepared in Washington, they would not have been any different from what we saw here. We had the impression that the government just tabled a carbon copy here and read it out in parliament.

We wonder where bills are written. Earlier, the member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie spoke about international treaties which were not signed by some countries. Oddly, when Canada was missing from the list, so was the United States. One might wonder just how real a voice Canada has internationally. Is it not increasingly seen as a mascot of the United States?

At some point, we must ask ourselves some questions. If I were in the shoes of the folks who are so full of advice about Canadian sovereignty and so on, I would be worried, because we are seeing less and less of it. On issues as important as this one, if there are differences—and I think there are in the public—we must ensure that they reflect our values and act responsibly when it comes to—

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am thrilled to speak again to Bill C-55. The government revamped this bill in order to introduce, for all practical purposes, some rather special measures.

In doing so, it set the tone for what the government probably did not foresee in terms of an impact on the international stage. It triggered in the rest of the world a movement restricting fundamental human rights and freedoms.

I will come back to this in a moment, because the very essence of my whole argument lies in the amendment moved by my colleague, the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel. This amendment puts the emphasis on Amnesty International's recent report. According to this report, in the aftermath of September 11, measures were taken and legislation was passed in many countries, but these also resulted in a restriction of the most fundamental freedoms.

On the international stage, Canada has always boasted of being one of the greatest champions of fundamental human rights and of passing a charter of rights. Some countries—Zimbabwe or India, for example—were inspired to a certain degree by the measures taken by this government in Bill C-55.

As several editorial writers have indicated this morning, whether in the Journal de Montréal or in Le Devoir , Bill C-55 would clearly lead to abuse, which is totally unacceptable. Why? Because, where controlled access military zones are concerned, for example, it is still the minister alone who would have the power to designate such zones, the same minister who omitted to inform his government in the prisoners of war matter. It is not only the Bloc Quebecois that said this several weeks and several months ago. Earlier this week, even Amnesty International indicated in its report, and I quote from the editorial in this morning edition of Le Devoir , “The Canadian section of Amnesty International said that it was concerned with policies that have been developed for refugees, with Ottawa's cowardly agreement with the legal status given by the Americans to prisoners of war”.

This was already part of our arguments on Bill C-55. My colleagues pointed that out several weeks ago. These are essentially the same findings that were made in an Amnesty International report that was made public yesterday or the day before.

The first argument of the Bloc then is to the effect that it is still the minister who would have the power to designate these controlled access military zones. The Amnesty International report said that this is totally unacceptable, given the way prisoners of war are being treated.

Another aspect is the fact that the consent of the Quebec government is still not required to establish a controlled access military zone on its territory. It seems essential that the federal government would inform the Quebec government of its intention to set up such controlled access military zones.

So, in light of all this, there is not much change between what was proposed in Bill C-42 and what we now find in Bill C-55.

This is cause for concern, because a number of countries refer to Canada as a protector of fundamental rights. This bill gives some legitimacy to and, unfortunately, justifies up to a point measures taken in Zimbabwe or in India, because Canada itself, which is seen as a protector of rights, adopts measures that violate freedoms. So, this is rather disturbing. The message sent by the federal government today is that it is now prepared to adopt measures that, until now, were associated with totalitarian countries and states.

One would never had thought that Canada would adopt such measures. No one would ever have believed that. I see that the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord is smiling. He does not agree with my comments. Yet, the Bloc Quebecois is not the only saying it. The privacy commissioner condemned Bill C-55, as the Bloc Quebecois did, when he said—and I would ask the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord to listen—“that some practices are similar to those that exist in totalitarian states”.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from British Columbia for his remarks. He has given a thoughtful and detailed analysis of the shortcomings and the dangers associated with this legislation. He has pointed out the lack of the government's ability to justify the need for the bill, to bring forward logic behind cutting off these interim orders, and to remove some of the safeguards that exist under existing legislation.

A number of members who have spoken have highlighted the fact that we already have in place an Emergencies Act. Let us look at the chronology and the history of how that particular legislation came about. The government House leader and other members present who have more history in this place will be quick to acknowledge that the Emergencies Act replaced the War Measures Act. The War Measures Act, under the Liberal administration of the time, was invoked and led to perhaps one of the most egregious assaults on civil liberties that this country has experienced.

There were numerous detentions and arrests that aggravated and inflamed the passions of Quebecers in particular, but Canadians generally. In invoking this type of Draconian approach and the denial of civil liberties, Canadians bore witness to a sad and dark chapter of Canadian history.

When one goes back further an example comes to mind and that is the Steven Truscott case. An individual was sentenced to hang in a judicial process where disclosure was not mandatory and where there were many shortcomings that led to egregious errors in law and almost cost young Steven Truscott his life.

I do not point out that type of example to torque up or engage in rhetoric, but to exemplify the fundamental breaches that could occur when there are parameters of the law that are stretched and ignored, which is what could happen in instances if the bill were to pass in its present form. There could be instances where basic rights could be denied such as the rights to enjoy privacy, freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention, and the free use of a person's property. That is how fundamental these infringements may become.

Many members who have spoken have pointed very quickly and earnestly to the declaration of controlled military zones and the ramifications that could flow from such declarations. What we are talking about here, because of the nebulous language contained in the bill, is that by simply moving a single piece of military equipment into any region, province or property within our nation's boundaries a declaration could be made deeming that area, in the immediate vicinity of this military vehicle, a controlled military zone. Being deemed a controlled military zone would create certain ramifications that would have grave implications for human rights and liberties. That is of concern when one examines the context of what happened in APEC, Quebec City, and what might happen in Kananaskis.

There is some question as to the timing, the need and the necessity for bringing this legislation forward now. In the aftermath of September 11, as all members rightly have been quick to point out, we are living in a brave new world. We are living in a new environment that recognizes the grave consequences and the real tangible threat that is out there, yet we have seen legislation passed hastily through the House in Bill C-36.

There was great rush and trepidation on the part of the Liberal government to bring forward Bill C-42 which encompassed many of the same elements as the bill we see before us. One could say that to a large extent Bill C-55 is a stripped down version of Bill C-42. Bill C-42 was part of this crass rush to bring in legislation that was supposed to take advantage of the prevailing public attitude and fear that existed.

Thankfully calmer thoughts and introspection have prevailed. What we see with Bill C-55, though, is a very dangerous piece of legislation, particularly when we look at the new powers that would be placed in the hands of ministers. A single minister would have the ability to make these designations and judgments based on information that could be very nebulous, could in fact be secret and could be withheld from parliament or from an individual who might fall victim to the enactment of this type of arbitrary power.

What is perhaps most fundamentally offensive and disturbing about elements of this bill is that once again we see in this legislation a deliberate effort on the part of the drafters, and therefore on the part of the government, to circumvent the role of parliament for scrutiny and for responsible criticism and questioning of the government's actions in the state of an emergency. What this does is waters down what might be deemed an emergency.

Under the current legislation the government rightly has to justify itself. It has to come before parliament within a very short period of time and say that the existing circumstances are so grave that the legislation is necessary. In the aftermath of September 11 there was no such attempt by the government to bring forward a request to invoke the Emergencies Act.

Reflecting on the sentiment of this nation and our brothers and sisters in the United States, clearly there was panic afoot. Yet even in that atmosphere there was no attempt by the government to declare the Emergencies Act in effect in Canada.

What, pray tell, is behind the government's intent to bring in a piece of legislation that is a watered down, interim measure that falls somewhere between no emergency and no need to invoke that type of legislation and something where the government can make a decision to invoke very severe and arbitrary powers without coming before parliament and without bringing it to the House for a vote where the people's representatives are given an opportunity to ask relevant questions, to press the government to justify its actions, to do what parliament is supposed to do in its finest hour, which is to ensure that people's rights are protected, that we are invoking due process and that we are in fact following the democratic process?

There is much to be discussed. There is much answer that the government must provide to convince members present. The previous speaker referred to the fact that there is much opposition and not only in the ranks of assembled members of parliament. Clearly groups that we have heard from around the country share these concerns and are looking forward to the occasion in which they might come before a parliamentary committee to force the government to bring forward its justification for the bill in the very same manner which we are attempting to do through this debate.

By example, if we are not permitted to have a full and open debate and to press the government on this type of legislation, it demonstrates the dangers, should this bill pass, and the inability for members of parliament to invoke this process of questioning and criticism. That is the danger. This debate in and of itself demonstrates what is wrong with having the type of legislation that allows the government to hide, to cover up, to keep secret its justifications for making designations that are tantamount to an emergency or a military zone. People have to understand that this is what will take place, if the legislation were to pass.

Like previous speakers to the legislation, I am encouraged by the fact that members have brought forward thoughtful criticisms, pressed the government on issues that will be affected, issues that pertain to immigration, the Aeronautics Act, the criminal code and the effect that will have, the transportation and security bill and the passing of information between government agencies. All that has caused many, including independent parties who answer to parliament, to question the government's motive, intent and public trust, which is an important element in all of this.

I hope members will continue to question that not only in the House but before the committee, which is the true test as to whether this open, transparent and honourable legislation.

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to this amendment to the amendment. Before getting into my speech, I would like to congratulate my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois for their great effort in fighting the government on Bill C-55.

We understand very well why the Bloc Quebecois and Quebecers in general do not trust this government since the events of 1970. They have good reason to be suspicious of this government because of past decisions that affected the province the Quebec.

The situation is similar in western Canada. Historically, a Liberal government appropriated natural resources in that region. We understand perfectly the issue of civil liberties and the reason why members of the Bloc Quebecois are so intent on protecting these liberties from this government.

When the government decided to introduce Bill C-55 members from every party and every part of the country were hopeful that the lessons of the defeat of Bill C-42 that the government experienced had been learned.

The big problem with Bill C-55 is twofold. A number of the complaints raised by my colleagues from the Progressive Conservative Party and the Bloc Quebecois are entirely in sync with those of the Canadian Alliance. We also find it frustrating that the government does not take seriously the idea of fighting the war on terrorism, getting involved and making a substantive contribution.

Let us look at the way the armed forces have been treated by the government during Canada's contribution to the war on terrorism in Afghanistan. The troops are now being withdrawn but, lo and behold, their desert environment camouflage uniforms will be ready in the second week of July. The government's timing is impeccable.

Bill C-42 had a number of problems that the government belatedly acknowledged. The unfortunate thing about politicians, and maybe this is the alpha male side of politics coming out, is that for some reason no matter how many times Canadians beat them over the head, they cannot admit when they have made a mistake. We consider the war on terrorism a serious crisis. When the attacks took place in New York city, Washington, D.C., and on the flight over Pennsylvania, the Americans said that anybody who participated in the war on terrorism should consider having a war declared upon them.

Canada had a war declared on it by terrorists, people who were willing to murder civilians to make some obtuse and nonsensical political point. However, the government acted about as quickly as molasses. It was embarrassing.

When the government introduced Bill C-42 it was full of holes. It knew it was full of holes. It was inadequate and did not fund our armed forces, did not secure the civil liberties of Canadians, and did not do many of the things that Canadians expected at a time of war. The government should have admitted it had made a mistake, pulled it back and moved forward to introduce a new piece of legislation.

Bill C-42 was pulled back just prior to Christmas. Bill C-55 was introduced and even the transport minister who was the minister responsible, which is a curious person to be responsible for the bill, said Bill C-55 was 90% the same as Bill C-42. Surely the government had received the message between September 11 and February or March when the bill was introduced that Canadians expected more from the government in terms of supporting the armed forces.

More was expected in terms of the Sea King helicopters, submarines and desert environment camouflage uniforms. However, the government put in place interim orders for cabinet ministers. What is interesting is that when the government introduced Bill C-42 the timeframe that a number of cabinet ministers were allowed to invoke interim order was 90 days. That was pulled back in Bill C-55. The government said it understood the concerns of Canadians about the idea of giving interim order powers to cabinet ministers so it reduced it from 90 days to 45 days.

That was an arbitrary, ad hoc cutting of 90 days in half to 45 days. When we had our briefing prior to the public announcement and tabling of Bill C-55 we asked department officials what new principle was being accomplished or achieved by cutting from 90 to 45 days. They shrugged and said they are were cutting it in half because it was more accountable. There was no new principle being put in place. Nothing has been learned. I find this a curious thing.

I want to discuss the idea of putting in an interim order measure for cabinet ministers, and believe me the Canadian Alliance takes seriously the idea of working on a non-partisan basis to advance the country's national interest particularly in time of war. However, the only reason we can see behind cutting the latitude for imposing interim orders without getting cabinet approval from 90 to 45 days is to isolate the decision of invoking an interim order around a particular cabinet minister. The political damage associated with putting in place a bad interim order would be isolated to that one cabinet minister and would not spread throughout the entire cabinet.

There is no reason whatsoever for that, even if we take the example of September 11, and the House leader for the government knows this very well. On September 11 there were 300 or 400 planes that were grounded and hundreds of those planes were grounded in Gander, Halifax, and Toronto because the United States did not want them flying into the northeast of the United States. Those planes were grounded on the order of the government, the Prime Minister and the transport minister. It happened within minutes of knowing that planes had flown into the World Trade Center towers.

The government did not need any interim order measures to do that. It just did it. Those powers were there. They were in existence and the government did not need Bill C-55 to ground those planes. The government does not need these powers.

I will now give a private sector example. If General Motors were to have a vehicle with faulty airbags it would decide to recall this particular vehicle. In order to make that decision all it has to do is get a quorum of the board of directors together and have a majority of the quorum decide to do that.

My guess is that a majority quorum of the board of directors of a large company like General Motors could probably get themselves organized together inside of about six hours if it is a serious emergency. We are a G-8 nation with unlimited technological capacities to get members of cabinet together. If we cannot get a majority quorum of cabinet together to decide to invoke an interim order then I question the capacity of the government's ability to tie its shoes and to remember to put on its underwear before it does that.

This is simple stuff. We have all the technological capacities to do this. We have telephones and video conferencing, all of which count in terms of getting people together for cabinet meetings. There is no reason why that standard could not be put together.

I would suggest, within the context of criticizing the government's interim order measures in Bill C-55, that given the recent scandals that we have seen in the House, and we have seen the minister of immigration who has the Speaker's ear which is always good, that Canadians are thinking about their leaders. We see scandals associated with the minister of immigration who does not like to answer those questions in the House. We see scandals associated with the former minister of public works and the former former minister of public works. We see scandals associated with now the former minister of defence. We see scandals associated with the current justice minister, and the current solicitor general.

The idea right now of giving individual cabinet ministers the ad hoc power to invoke interim orders without having to go to cabinet for full approval for 45 days is more than a little suspicious for every day Canadians. Canadians are thinking to themselves about this group of people in power. This is a group of people who are anxious to avoid accountability for their actions, who do not even stand up in question period and answer simple, obvious questions, such as those asked of the minister of immigration about why he changed his story about staying at the Boulay lodge. One day he said he was not there and the next day the minister said he was there.

The solicitor general is hiding behind the Deputy Prime Minister. For whatever reason he cannot seem to summon the will to stand up in the House and answer the most simple questions. With that reality, Canadians are suspicious of the capacity of the government to take responsibility for its actions, face the cameras and face the nation through this House. The government does not seem to be able to answer those simple questions.

Canadians are more than a little suspicious and would look rather jaundicely at giving cabinet ministers more power to invoke interim orders on an ad hoc basis without cabinet or parliamentary approval. Canadians have every reason to be suspicious of that. The government has not addressed the concerns of Bill C-42. Bill C-55 is a terrible piece of legislation. I congratulate all my colleagues for opposing it.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

My colleague from Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough, who put forward a wonderful amendment, asked whether we trusted the government. Do Canadians trust the government?

I think if we were to do a poll today on Sparks Street, on Main Street in Virden or in the Atlantic region we would get the same answer. Canadians have no trust in the government. There is no trust in its ability to manage its own portfolios. We have seen no trust in the government's ability to manage taxpayer dollars. We do not believe there is trust in the government to manage this very serious piece of legislation.

What would the bill actually do? The bill would grant the cabinet a whole host of new powers, including the right to arbitrarily declare certain military zones off limits to Canadians. It would also violate the rights of Canadians by supplying passenger information to the RCMP without any cause. Can anyone believe that the legislation would give cabinet the ability to pass on information about all of us, our families and the people in our constituencies? It would arbitrarily allow them to pass on that information to the police.

We are a free country. We have the right to travel. We have the right to practice our religions. We have freedom of speech. We have the right to stand and say what we will about the government. What would happen if I were to make some comments that the government did not like? Would they pass on information about me to the police? The legislation that we have before us would allow the ministers to do that.

Other pieces of legislation that granted similar powers were all withdrawn, some over time, such as the War Measures Act and even Bill C-42, but they were withdrawn because we recognized the danger. However Bill C-55 came forward and it is still here. The bill would grant the government both the power to protect and the ability to abuse this power. Unfortunately it is most likely the latter that will prevail.

The existing law, the Emergencies Act, ensures this does not happen by protecting the principles of a free and democratic parliament. Something which Canadians may not even know or realize is that legislation already exists that allows the government to do what it has to do. The Emergencies Act, which is in effect now, allows the government to do what it wants to do but it does have checks and balances.

We have the checks and balances that parliament applies under the Emergencies Act but those checks and balances would be taken out by this act. Why do we need Bill C-55 when the checks and balances are already available under the Emergencies Act.

The Emergencies Act provides a system of checks and balances which not only ensure that emergency power is used appropriately but it gives Canadians a sense of comfort knowing that their government cannot overstep the boundaries of this free and democratic society.

Parliament would have no say under the bill. Bill C-55 would make parliament irrelevant during a time of emergency. It would leave the rights of Canadians unprotected and at the beck and call of cabinet and the ministers. They would have the right to imply and impact Canadians with whatever they felt was right and necessary, which would not necessarily be what is right and necessary for us as Canadians.

Bill C-55 would permit the government to enact a security measure without the consideration of the House of Commons, whereas the Emergencies Act, which is already in place, allows parliament to review any order issued under that act. As Bill C-55 is written right now, parliament would become totally irrelevant. It would be taken out of the picture and would have no opportunity to speak to whatever those ministers and the cabinet table felt was necessary to enact.

The most serious concerns lie with the provision that allows for interim orders, and it is where our most serious objection to Bill C-55 can be found. Ministers should not be granted new powers that will exist outside parliamentary scrutiny.

There are quite a number of ministers who are given this power. I believe the member for Regina--Qu'Appelle talked about the Minister of Transport.

I see I am running out of time so I will wrap up. I will have an opportunity to talk about the other ministers who may well go beyond their bounds of power. However I will do that when the subamendment of the Bloc is approved and then I will to speak to it at that time.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I again rise in the House to give my comments to Bill C-55. I would first like to congratulate the previous speaker from Regina--Qu'Appelle. He has been in the House much longer than I and probably the majority of people in the House. He can certainly speak from experience with respect to the protection of the civil liberties and civil rights of our constituents and all citizens of the country. I thank him for his historical comments which were as a result of his long tenure as a member of parliament.

I also want to congratulate my colleague from Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough who has put forward what I believe is a very necessary amendment. I would ask all members, not only those in opposition but those thinking members of the government, to seriously consider the amendment which states:

this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-55...because it constitutes an autocratic power grab by the Liberal government at the expense of parliamentary oversight and the civil liberties of Canadians.

Some may think that is harsh language but when one looks at the actual wording, the actual nuances, the actual clauses and the actual power that the legislation would give to members of the government, particularly certain ministers of the government, that language is not strong enough. The bill would provide an opportunity for some minister to take this power way beyond what it is that Canadians wish to have implemented.

I would like to go back a stage to Bill C-42. This was legislation that was brought in by this same government and was a total knee-jerk reaction to a very serious situation, make no mistake about that. Our party has stood time and again in the House stating that we did not condone terrorism or any type of action taken against citizens. However we still do not condone the power grab the government is trying to put in place that would cut off all the civil liberties that we share as Canadians.

Bill C-42 was a knee-jerk reaction to September 11. People on that side of the House and officials in departments had lights burning late into the night trying to put together what they thought was a package that would quell the issues that came out of September 11, the terrorist attacks that we deplored.

People put clauses in pieces of legislation that when they rethink them are obviously very wrong. We recognized that in this particular bill. I have to admit that the government, and it was probably the first good logical thing it has ever done, listened not only to members of the opposition and members of committee but to hundreds of witnesses who came before committee. Those witnesses said that the bill was wrong for certain reasons. No one accepted what was written in Bill C-42. None of the people who came forward, who wrote to my office or who visited my constituency office or my office here in the House said that Bill C-42 had to be passed because it was good legislation.

On the contrary, everybody said that the bill should not be supported nor passed because it was terrible and draconian. The Liberal government of the day pulled the bill. It did not let it go through. It let it die. The government asked if we would mind having it removed from the order paper. That was probably the only good thing that has happened in the last nine years of this government but it was the right thing to do.

Unfortunately the government has massaged and manipulated the legislation. It has changed some words and put in other words. In effect, Bill C-55 reflects the mentality, the psychology and the ideology of the Liberal government, and that has been brought forward in the bill. It has not changed the concept of too much power which would go to the ministers.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Quebecers and Canadians who are listening to us, I am pleased to rise for the second time today in the House in the debate on Bill C-55 and on the amendment moved by our colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party.

A few Liberal members have spoken today. We have been dealing with Bill C-55 for about three days now and they have not really taken part in these discussions. The same goes for the Canadian Alliance members. It shows that human rights and freedoms are not of major interest to Liberal members from Quebec and Canada, as well as to Canadian Alliance members.

Why? Because the Liberal government is a centralizing one and the Canadian Alliance is no better. It would probably want to centralize powers much more in the hands of the central government. For those who are listening to us, I will try to drive home the importance of the statements that have been in the newspapers for over a month now.

I will mention only the titles. On Thursday, May 2, 2002, a La Presse headline read “The privacy commissioner condemns Bill C-55. Some measures are taken directly from some totalitarian states, he said”.

On May 19, a headline read “The fight against terrorism: half-truth and misleading statement. The privacy commissioner accuses the solicitor general of using the September 11 attacks to give police undue extra powers”. We must never forget that the solicitor general is responsible, among other things, for the RCMP and CSIS, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. The privacy commissioner therefore made a serious accusation.

Even yesterday, another headline read “Amnesty International takes stock. September 11 has hurt human rights”.

This is what we are facing in Bill C-55. In the short time that I have, I will try to explain the elements that have been added, that is, that were not in Bill C-42 and that we find in Bill C-55, concerning the provision of personal information.

For example, clause 4.81(1) says:

4.81(1) The Minister, or any officer of the Department of Transport authorized by the Minister for the purposes of this section, may, for the purposes of transportation security, require any air carrier or operator of an aviation reservation system to provide the Minister or officer, as the case may be, within the time and in the manner specified by the Minister or officer, with information set out in the schedule—

This means that from now on airlines will be required to release this information to the Department of Transport for security reasons. I will explain later to whom the Minister of Transport or his officials are required to release this information.

First, I would like to refer to the information listed in the schedule which you will have to give to your airliner:

1. The number of the person's passport—

2. The city or country in which the travel included in the person's passenger name record—

3. The itinerary cities—

4. The name of the operator of the aircraft on which the person is on board or expected to be on board—

5. The phone numbers of the person—

6. The person's address—

that means your address and your phone number;

1. The manner in which the person's ticket was paid for

which means how you paid for the ticket

We are talking here about your credit card. They will have your credit card number.

1. If applicable, a notation that there are gaps in the itinerary included in the person's passenger name record that necessitate travel by an undetermined method—

Therefore you will have to say where you are going, to what city and how you will travel from one point to another in that city. Also:

1. Routing information in respect of the travel included in the person's passenger name record—

This means your whole itinerary.

The Department of Transport requires airlines to release this information. What will the Minister of Transport and his officials do with it? This is how they will be able to use it and, again, I quote from section 4.81 of the Bill:

(3) Information provided under subsection (1) may be disclosed to persons outside the Department of Transport only for the purposes of transportation security, and it may be disclosed only to:

(a) the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration;

(b) the Minister of National Revenue;

(c) the chief executive officer of the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority—

A new agency, which does not exist yet, will be responsible for security across Canada.

(d) a person designated under subsection 4.82(2) or (3).

What is important in subsections (2) and (3) is very simple: the reference to the commissioner of the RCMP in (2) and to the dIrector of CSIS in (3).

Now the Minister of Transport can require the air carrier to provide him with information when he deems there is a security problem, and can transfer them to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the Minister of National Revenue, the Chief Executive Officer of the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, the Commissioner of the RCMP and the Director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

And what can these people do? We are told that, within citizenship and immigration, customs and excise and air transport security, this information cannot be disclosed except for security purposes.

But how long will they be kept? The three departments or agencies I have listed, citizenship and immigration, customs and revenue and transportation safety, can retain them for seven days. These individuals and organizations, as well as the Department of Transport, can therefore retain the information for seven days. You are off on a trip, on vacation, but your itinerary, your credit card number, your home phone number, your address, will be wandering about the various departments for seven days, in the name of security.

What is going to be done with this information you provide? They want to use it for security purposes and so they can carry out investigations. What if they turn up a security problem? They are going to transfer the information to the RCMP and CSIS, both of whom have no obligation to destroy them after seven days. The other organizations have that obligation, but they do not. The RCMP and CSIS can retain them as long as they please.

People who are listening have certainly understood that new powers are being granted to these organizations. That is why the privacy commissioner has protested that this is pure nonsense. On top of that, you would have to give this information before you leave and it can be kept for seven days. If you are unfortunate enough, you will board the same plane as one of those Hells Angels we were talking about this morning, who have been invited to the festivities in England for the Queen and will be allowed on their bikes in the Queen's parade. If that biker has a criminal record, he could be inspected, searched and investigated. Of course, all passagers aboard the same plane could undergo the same procedure.

That is the purpose of the bill. We are now in the same situation as in the US. They asked for this information a few months ago, so we passed Bill C-44. What are the Americans doing now? When the Americans see people, men or women, who are in the company of people who have been flagged, especially when they all want to go to international meetings, the investigation drags on so much that it so happened once that more than 40 passengers could not board their plane. The intelligence people came and decided to investigate and hold back all those who were going to campaign for an association. This procedure was used to restrict their freedom. They had to miss their flight. Why? Because there was an investigation on the information they had given. One of them had a criminal record, so they decided to investigate all the other people.

So if you are a man or a woman boarding a flight with a potential criminal, you might have the misfortune of being submitted to an investigation, something that I do not wish to you. In the country you are heading to, they might not have the same respect for human rights and you might get arrested by that country's military police, who will tell you that Canadian authorities called to know where you are now. That is where we are at now, and that is not funny. That is what the privacy commissioner was describing.

From the outset, the Bloc was opposed to Bill C-42, and we are opposed to Bill C-55. When we accept that our rights and freedoms will not be respected any more, we prove the terrorists right.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to move an amendment to the amendment under consideration. I move:

That the motion be amended by adding the following:

“and a denial of rights and freedoms that was denounced by Amnesty International in its most recent report.”

[Marcel Gagnon, Bloc, Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, now it is my turn to say that I am a little, more than a little, shocked by Bill C-55.

Almost everyone is opposed to Bill C-55, which followed on Bill C-42, which had to be withdrawn because it was unacceptable. Bill C-55 is not all that much better.

When advantage is taken of events like those of September 11 to violate people's privacy, the bills almost start to look worse than terrorism itself. It makes no sense to use an event like September 11 to take away people's freedom.

Journalist Michel C. Auger used the phrase “The right to terrorize” in the Journal de Montréal . It is quite unbelievable to see how far the government will go to take away people's rights. The privacy commissioner says the same thing. The government takes advantage of occasions such as September 11 to invade people's privacy.

Even in a country well known for its respect of privacy, a country where commitment to the charter of rights and freedoms was recently celebrated, a country which serves as a model for other countries which are not very good at respecting privacy, even in a country such as ours, the government has stooped to taking advantage of events such as those of September 11 to invade people's privacy. We cannot agree with a bill such as this, particularly when it talks about security zones and when we see how little credibility our ministers have.

When I hear that the minister would have powers like those provided for in this bill, it scares me. We see how, when things happen and questions are asked, the minister suddenly does not have enough authority.

It is the job of public servants. It is just about everybody's fault. The Minister of Justice even told us today that he did not have enough power. He would like to be able to have decision making authority on even more things. This bill definitely gives the minister too much power.

I had the opportunity to talk about it. When I talk about security zones, one thing comes to my mind. I think of Lake Saint-Pierre, in my region. Talk about a security zone. Since 1952, the lake has been used as a firing range. It is supposed to be a security zone. Because of these training activities, there are still 300,000 mortar shells at the bottom of Lake Saint-Pierre.

The minister has powers in this regard. How does he use these powers? Does he use them to clean up Lake Saint-Pierre? Does he use them to clean up the Jacques-Cartier River? Does he use them to clean up the locations where military personnel practice shooting, where there are weapons and where the so-called security zone is located? There is a security zone at Lake Saint-Pierre. There are places where we cannot even go fishing or hunting. So, there is a so-called security zone at Lake Saint-Pierre. What security? There are 300,000 shells at the bottom of Lake Saint-Pierre.

Of these, 10,000 could explode at any moment. In fact, some people have been killed by shells that had been pushed up by the ice on Lake Saint-Pierre.

During the eighties, a couple who was preparing for retirement built a beautiful boat to sail around the world. One evening, before leaving, they decided to make a bonfire along the security zone of Lake Saint-Pierre. Someone found a shell. Not knowing what it was because it had been damaged over time, the person threw the shell in the bonfire. The celebration turned into a nightmare when the shell exploded, killing one person.

To this day, every year, we must fly over the shores of the St. Lawrence River, all the way to Île d'Orléans, to try to recover shells that may have made their way out of Lake Saint-Pierre. We ask questions in the House on this issue. The minister has powers. We are told to trust the minister. He does have powers. But when will Lake Saint-Pierre be cleaned up?

I am told about security zones and not to worry. In my opinion, terrorism often lies in the government's behaviour. I am often more concerned about that. I have no problem with such powers being given to the minister, provided these powers are respected and the government first answers the questions asked by members of parliament.

We ask questions on almost every issue, but the answers we do get are very evasive. Some ministers have not said a word in the House in the last two or three days because they have been told not to answer, to avoid being caught red-handed. Is that the security of the future? Is that the way to make the public feel secure? Is that the way to ensure public confidence?

I can see a member opposite laughing. This is no laughing matter. It is sad, because the hon. member would have said the exact same thing I am saying in the last parliament. Unfortunately, he has now become mute and when he does talk, he has to say what the government tells him to say.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak to the amendment that, as my hon. colleague from the Bloc indicated, has been put forward by the member of parliament for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough. The amendment states:

That all the words after “that” be deleted and the following be substituted,

“this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-55 because it constitutes an autocratic power grab by the Liberal government at the expense of parliamentary oversight and the civil liberties of Canadians.”

A number of acts come into play in Bill C-55: the Aeronautics Act; the National Defence Act; the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority Act; the Marine Transportation Security Act; the Criminal Code of Canada; and interim order powers.

A lack of specifics with respect to the Aeronautics Act was one of our concerns about the original bill, Bill C-42, which was introduced last fall in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks. There have been modifications to the part of Bill C-55 dealing with the Aeronautics Act.

The part of the bill dealing with the National Defence Act has been somewhat changed. The proposed military security zones would now be called controlled access military zones. Canadians will find out all about this next month in Kananaskis. Bill C-55 stipulates that the zones could only be created to protect DND property or foreign military assets in the country. The changes are relatively insignificant.

With respect to interim order powers, the bill would now require orders to be approved by governor in council within 45 rather than 90 days. They would need to be tabled in parliament within 15 days. The changes are relatively insignificant and do not substantially address concerns about abuse of power and interim order making.

The Canadian Air Transport Security Authority Act received royal assent after Bill C-42 was tabled last fall. Bill C-55 has been updated to reflect that the act was passed. If Liberal members opposite had their act together this section of the bill would have initially appeared as a conditional amendment. The fact that it did not further underlines how the government has been making up its security policy on the fly for the past several months.

Unlike Bill C-42, Bill C-55 would add a new section to the Marine Transportation Security Act that would empower the government to contribute funds to port authorities to help pay for new security measures. Peter Mancini, our justice critic in the House from 1997 to 2000, said the Liberal government would rue the day it privatized port authorities. That day has arrived even more quickly than Mr. Mancini predicted.

Bill C-55 would broaden the scope of the criminal code with respect to hoaxes.

There have been a number of changes to Bill C-55 but as civil libertarians we still have concerns about it. In one sense it is an improved public safety package. However it needed improving. In the wake of September 11, Bill C-42 was rushed in. The government sat on it from November until April when it brought in the revised bill, Bill C-55. It should have made significant improvements at the time. It did not. It should therefore come as no surprise to people who follow politics and are aware of the New Democratic Party's strong support for civil liberties over the years that we will continue to oppose this piece of legislation.

The government wants to give itself powers to spy on passenger lists of people travelling on airplanes bound for domestic or foreign destinations. That is too much. It introduced anti-terrorism Bill C-42 which was widely criticized by civil libertarians as being draconian and dangerous to the freedom and liberty of Canadian citizens. That may have been why the government paused last fall and did not proceed with the bill.

As I have indicated, we in our party do not believe the new version has been substantially approved. It is overly heavy handed. Some people have indicated that it is draconian in its present form. As I said, it is understandable that mistakes are made when bills are formulated on the fly after a tragedy. However with the benefit of hindsight it is unfortunate that so many mistakes remain in the legislation.

The New Democrats are not the only ones opposed to Bill C-55 and speaking out against it. The privacy commissioner has deep concerns, so much so that he took the relatively extraordinary step of publicly releasing the letter he wrote to the transport minister on the topic. The letter related specifically to clause 4.82 of the bill. The privacy commissioner's concern was that the provisions of Bill C-55 could fundamentally and unnecessarily alter the balance between individuals and the state that exists and should exist in a free society such as our own.

The privacy commissioner Mr. Radwanski said he feared deeply for the privacy and civil rights of Canadians. So do we all. So should we all. The privacy commissioner is not alone. At least one backbench Liberal has publicly expressed concern that the bill in its present form would give undue powers to cabinet ministers over the civil liberties of Canadians.

We are making the same call in the House of Commons for caution, prudence and the protection of civil liberties as did our predecessor giants. Men like Tommy Douglas and David Lewis stood in the House in the fall of 1970 and spoke out against the War Measures Act. That was a time of emergency. On reflection, this is also a time of emergency. It is unworthy of the government to proceed in this way on this bill at this time.

As I have said, the government has waited four months to introduce the bill. All of a sudden it is in a rush to have it pass through the House before we rise in little more than three weeks time. Where has the government been since the bill was introduced in November? Why was it not brought back to the House until the spring? We have been dealing with a number of relatively miniscule items since then. We could have dealt with a more substantive bill like this but we did not.

It is our duty as parliamentarians to give the legislation the depth and scrutiny it deserves and requires. We are asking the questions Canadians want answered. In doing so we hope to give the government and the public time to hone in on exactly what is going on.

We in our party oppose the legislation and welcome the amendment produced by the hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough. We call on the government to reconsider the tight, unrealistic time frame it has indicated and give us the space necessary to consult all Canadians and parliamentarians on Bill C-55.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-55. I am eager to see the decision that you will hand down on the amendment brought forward by my colleague from the Conservative Party, since I totally support that amendment. It asks that this bill be scrapped, and I agree with the Conservative member on that.

This government never justified why we, in the House, should pass legislation that would restrict individual freedoms. It never justified why such harsh legislation was needed following the events of September 11. September 11 has become the perfect excuse for limiting the rights of citizens.

I want to congratulate my colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville, who this morning received telephone calls from two women's associations informing her of their objections to Bill C-55. It is nice to see that, again, it is the women of this country who are telling these men who are in the majority in the House that they must stop restricting the freedoms of Canadians and Quebecers.

I want to thank these women and tell them that I heard their message and that, as a woman myself, I know that they are right. Restricting rights and freedoms is useless. We already have, in the existing laws, all the means we need to counter terrorist acts.

If the government were willing to enforce these laws that we already have here, in Canada, we would not be talking about Bill C-55.

Before oral question period, the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord tried to fool everybody by saying that it is good legislation. Strangely enough, it seems that only this government is right. Many people, including editorial writers, Amnesty International and other organizations, said “This bill should suffer the same fate as Bill C-42. It should be withdrawn. And this government should do its homework properly”.

When a member from a party on this side of the House wants to become a government member, we see a radical change in his or her position. In that regard, I would like to quote what the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord said in a statement that he made on February 22, 2000, when he was in opposition:

The Liberals absolutely do not want to consult the public to find out what it thinks of this measure... Arrogance, contempt and indifference toward the House of Commons and toward all Canadians are now part of a behaviour that is beginning to spread throughout this government.

Curiously, when someone is in the governing party, he is at a loss for ideas. I thought the hon. member was right about the government, when he was in the opposition.

If he really believes in Bill C-55, why does he not consult the public before it becomes law? This type of legislation will lead us up a dead-end alley of repression.

We, of the Bloc Quebecois, have experienced the War Measures Act. I referred to that in my last speech. Some of my friends were arrested without explanation. They were held in very secret places and not told why they were being held.

The government will be empowered to designate controlled access military zones and a single minister, the Defence Minister, will determine the dimensions of these zones.

He will order defence staff to create military zones. He will be the one to decide. This is serious. A single person cannot be given the unlimited power to restrict civil liberties.

This government always says “Rights and liberties are important. We celebrated the anniversary of the charter of rights and freedoms. Canada is known throughout the world as a great democratic country”. With this bill, however, it is following in the Americans' footsteps, who have lost control over what they are because of the events of September 11. They put everything in the same basket and say “From now on I can do anything, even violate the rights and freedoms of people.”

Now, I do not belong to this country, namely because of the way this government considers the need to have restricting laws in Canada. This is why I want to get out of this country. If this is where this government is going, no way, I want no part of it. I say to this government “Go to the centre. Meanwhile, we will go our own way and respect the rights and freedoms of people”.

On behalf of the people of Jonquière, I say that such a bill should not be passed. It is a repressive bill that will never give the people from Jonquière the opportunity to express themselves. If the defence minister decides to create a zone around the Bagotville military base, we will never know whether we are in or out of that zone. Moreover, the minister will not even have to consult the provincial government to decide what should be included in that zone. He will not even have the courtesy to do it. He will only say “I am the boss, I am going ahead and I am making the decisions”. The people from Jonquière and from Quebec will never accept the government acting in such a way.

I ask this government to withdraw Bill C-55, to toss it out and to say “We will review all the legislation we have. We are convinced that we have everything we need to protect Canada from terrorist attacks like the ones carried out on September 11”. It is never too late to step back and say “I am wrong”. It is never too late to say “After some discussion, I admit that it is true”.

Oddly enough, we hear nothing from across the way. They are so silent. What is happening with this bill is serious business. Why are they keeping quiet? Like me, they represent citizens, and are here to speak on their behalf and to protect their rights and freedoms. It is odd that they have nothing to say. Does this mean they are so out of touch with the needs of their fellow citizens and are so much on a different plane that the things that affect people's everyday lives are of no importance to them.

These are very important questions and need answers before there is any vote on Bill C-55. I am therefore most humbly requesting that this government withdraw Bill C-55 and redo its homework so that it can introduce another bill, consulting the provinces and the mayors of major Quebec centres as well.

In my region, the Saguenay, there is one mayor who represents close to 148,000 voters. Our new mayor, Jean Tremblay, will not even be consulted. He will not be very thrilled about that. He has been in the visitor's gallery here in the House of Commons and he was far from a silent presence. They will have a hard time with him. I told them “Before you have to deal with the mayor of Saguenay, you might be better off to sit down with the stakeholders, withdraw your bill and see that what gets passed reflects a concern for the wellbeing and the rights and freedoms of all those who are in Canada at this time”.

[André Harvey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-55. I think that the important thing is to approach it with the greatest respect possible.

Let us remember that a legislative committee was formed to study every aspect of the bill. Obviously, we are not necessarily claiming to have come up with the perfect bill. We are here to exchange views and discuss ideas. I think that it is particularly important to bring out certain points.

There is much talk about the bill violating various rights. I think that Canadians' most fundamental right is the right to live in peace. It is the government's responsibility to do everything it can, through Bill C-55 on public safety, to ensure that Canadians can lead a normal, peaceful life, with the government assuming its responsibilities.

On occasion, we have been known to exaggerate, as has the opposition. In our profession, moderation is not always our strongest suit. However, I am certainly going to try to bring out those features of the terminology which strike me as important and which have generated, I think, considerable confusion. It is not always easy to see things clearly.

The most important thing to understand is that our country, like most western countries, is facing an extremely vicious and ruthless adversary, namely international terrorism.

This bill affects almost every department. It will require us to amend approximately 20 statutes—no small number—and in particular the most important tool that our ministers, the government and the House of Commons will subsequently have occasion to use—interim orders.

Solely for the benefit of the House—and if other colleagues have anything to add which would help us better understand what Bill C-55 is all about, they are welcome to do so—I would like to make the following point about interim orders.

We are sometimes given the impression that all of Canada is going to be a controlled access military zone. In reality, this will not be the case. Controlled access military zones will mainly be connected with military equipment and troops, in a spirit of co-operation with all other countries.

The interim orders referred to in the bill merely allow ministers to speed up processes which already exist under Canadian law. They do not authorize them to do anything beyond what Canadian law permits. Interim orders allow us to speed up the process, which is a minister's privilege.

Interim orders, against which we have heard many members speak out, are necessary to allow a minister to immediately deal with a situation that requires an urgent response to protect Canada and Canadians as a result of a major threat to health, safety or the environment. Interim orders are simply designed to deal with circumstances that do not provide enough time to make regulations as legislation would normally require. Interim orders are aimed at providing a minister with the regulatory tools necessary to deal with a particular threat in a very targeted manner.

The accountability of parliament would not be diminished. Unlike regulations, all interim orders must be tabled in parliament within 15 sitting days. Interim orders are common sense emergency measures to accelerate our current process.

Interim orders are necessary to allow a minister to act immediately to deal with a major threat to health, safety or the environment. Interim orders can only be made in relation to powers that may already be exercised under an act of parliament for which the minister is responsible. This minister would not invent anything. The ministers must act in accordance with legislation passed by parliament. Interim orders are simply designed to deal with circumstances that do not provide enough time to make regulations, as legislation would normally require.

The confusion comes mostly from the distinction between emergency measures and interim orders. Interim orders and the Emergency Measures Act are used for different kinds of problems and in different areas of jurisdiction.

The Emergency Measures Act is a last resort and a far-reaching legislative measure. It is used in an emergency at the national level and only if it is determined that no other law in Canada can effectively resolve the issue and if the emergency is such that one province alone cannot deal with it or that it seriously threatens the capacity of the Government of Canada to protect the nation's sovereignty, security and territorial integrity.

The Emergency Measures Act applies--quite clearly--to four categories of emergency situations: disasters, public order emergencies, international crises and a state of war. In the two first cases, it is up to the provinces to react. In the last two cases, the federal government would exercise a planning function centered on the mobilization of national resources, with the help of provincial and territorial governments as well as the private sector.

By contrast, the interim orders provided for in Bill C-55 are more modest measures designed to deal with situations in areas of federal jurisdiction where regulatory changes are necessary and urgent.

All in all, what is essential is first to read the bill carefully. When dealing with Bill C-55, a major piece of legislation for the security of our fellow citizens, it is very important to examine all the elements we feel are a source of problems, such as providing the list of passengers. How, if we provide a list of passengers to U.S. security services, can we not co-operate with the RCMP and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service? This is utter nonsense.

All the information provided must be destroyed within a week, unless it had been proved that this information is extremely important for national security reasons.

As for the controlled access military zones, the Emergencies Act is already in place. It is strictly an interim order allowing the minister to act swiftly within the current legislative framework. We will not designate all of Canada as a controlled access military zone. It is strictly for the purpose of protecting our own military equipment and personnel.

All in all, I am sure that the legislative committee, made up of extremely capable members with whom I am anxious to work on Bill C-55, will be able to give careful consideration to Bill C-55, which replaces Bill C-42 and is much more flexible.

What is important, as I said, is to make the distinctions with regard to three or four key elements: the provision of information, the interim orders made under the Emergencies Act, and so on.

I am sure that all my colleagues will easily understand the validity of this legislation. I am sure also that by avoiding exaggeration we will be better able to continue with consideration of this bill, which is extremely important for the security of all our fellow citizens and also to strengthen our co-operation with all the countries fighting against international terrorism.

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the time to speak to Bill C-55. I feel like calling my speech “Security vs. freedom”.

To begin, I would like to quote Irene Khan, the secretary general of Amnesty International. Members will recall that this is the organization that was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1977. Ms. Khan said that “the respect for human rights must encompass not only the universality, but also the indivisibility of all rights... There can be no trade-off between human rights and security, between justice and impunity”.

Incidentally, Bill C-55 is a recast of Bill C-42, and it is virtually a photocopy of the bill, because Bill C-55 still contains some of the most hotly contested elements from Bill C-42.

Having given some thought to Bill C-55 and fundamental freedoms, how can we not believe that the bill will go against these freedoms, when the ministers of transport, defence or health are able to intervene directly, without having to go through the House? Let us not forget that they have 45 days to table their orders here.

How can we leave it up to the new Minister of National Defence alone—and incidentally, I wish him good luck and my best wishes in his new position, I think it is fair to say that he will make a better minister than the former defence minister—to determine the reasonable dimensions of a controlled access military zone?

What are reasonable dimensions? Describe to me reasonable dimensions, Mr. Speaker. Your description will differ from mine, because your reason will never be the same as mine. We may come close on some issues. We may be close, but there will always be a nuance between your reason and my reason. I could never win by trying to argue that my reason is better than your reason, and vice versa.

Now this is will be up to one person. This person will be able to say “I am determining what the reasonable dimensions of this controlled access military zone will be”. I expect that if I step inside this zone, there are good chances that I will have my toes cut off.

So it is important for the House, the people sitting here in this chamber, to take part in determining controlled access military zones.

I would like to digress to let the House know how I feel. I do not want to condemn or moralize, but I find it very improper that our colleagues on the other side are remaining silent while we are debating a bill of this importance.

I feel our Alliance colleagues should participate a bit more in the discussion. Our friends from the NDP should get involved a bit more. Should we not all get involved in this debate?

This bill is of major importance and will have a direct impact on the freedom of people. But our colleagues are saying nothing.

In passing, I would like to commend the painstaking and very professional work of my colleague, the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel. He made several presentations in caucus on this issue and did some wonderful work.

Another aspect of this bill bothers me, and it is the fact that while the government is bragging about wanting to co-operate with the provinces, talking with them and taking their opinion into account, this bill totally ignores the provinces. This bill says to the provinces “you are nothing, you are insignificant and we will not consult you. Even if we create a controlled access military zone in Quebec, Alberta or Ontario, the elected representatives of those provinces have nothing to say about it”. This is outrageous. They should at least talk with the provinces in question.

What assurances do we have that, in June, when the next G-8 summit will take place in Kananaskis, the whole area will not be declared a controlled access military zone? The bill would allow for the creation of ia controlled access military zone for reasons of international relations or international security, or for other reasons.

This is cause for concern. We are in 2002. As you see, I disagree with what the government is doing, but we must look at what other governments are doing.

If it were not for September 11 and what happened in the United States, some legislation would not have been amended. Would they have put military personnel at the border between Canada and the United States? The biggest problem I have with this bill is that it is hypocritical. The government wants to grab more power. But in every country there are laws to ensure the safety of citizens.

For example, here we have an act we owe to Mr. Trudeau, the War Measures Act. It is on the books and it had an impact on individual freedoms. I remember quite well, and I hope I am not mistaken, but the member for Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies was affected by this act. He was imprisoned for 30 days without knowing why.

Personally, at noon on a Friday, while I was in a tavern in Ville-Saint-Laurent with twelve of my colleagues, I was arrested and taken to Collège Saint-Laurent where I spent the weekend. Why? I do not know. Maybe they did not like the colour of my hair or the colour of my eyes, maybe they did not like my height, I do not know. During the whole weekend, I slept on a cot and I really do not know why I was arrested.

It might have been because we were speaking French or discussing the events triggered by the FLQ at the time. I really have to idea.

But this bill is worse. I believe we should adopt the motion put forward by the Progressive Conservative Party and toss out Bill C-55 and start all over again.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join the debate on the main motion of Bill C-55. I recently had an opportunity to speak to the amendment. I also have had the opportunity now to listen to a number of other speakers and very thoughtful presentations as we work our way through this very complex bill.

On behalf of the NDP caucus, I would like to address the remarks of the previous speaker from the Liberal Party, the member for Bonavista--Trinity--Conception, who found fault with the NDP's analysis of Bill C-55. He felt that perhaps we were being too harsh and that we were not looking hard enough to find the merits and benefits of the bill.

I would like to point out that we have made a very detailed, in-depth analysis of the bill and we still find it flawed, we still find it worrisome and we still find it necessary to caution the Canadian public that some of the very values by which we identify ourselves as Canadians will be jeopardized by the bill.

I do not think my colleague from the NDP caucus who spoke previously overstated things at all in her speech. Perhaps the hon. member from Bonavista should have paid closer attention to some of the concerns we have raised. We do not raise them just to be obstinate. We raise them as a way of cautioning the Canadian people that this massive power grab of an omnibus bill raises serious concerns and could jeopardize the very way we view ourselves as Canadians, because some of those basic freedoms and principles that we enjoy and are committed to are the very things of which we are most proud.

When I raise specifics, I hope the hon. member listens. He said that the NDP had nothing positive at all to say about Bill C-55. I would like to put it on the record that there are points in Bill C-55 that we find important. In fact I would point out that Bill C-42, which was so hastily thrown together after the tragic events of 9/11, had to be done away with and put out of its misery. Some of the changes in Bill C-55 are improvements over Bill C-42, such as the change to the Aeronautics Act whereby the transport minister's regulation making powers concerning aviation safety will be better defined under Bill C-55 than they were under Bill C-42.

There are specific areas, to which I am happy to point, where we find Bill C-55 better than the previous bill. I would start by saying though that Bill C-42 was thrown together hastily and when it was pulled, we waited for four or five months for Bill C-55 to come forward. Now we are being told by the government that we must get Bill C-55 through immediately and hastily because it is an urgent issue. Where was the urgency when Bill C-42 languished for five months in bureaucratic limbo prior to us seeing the introduction of Bill C-55?

I do not accept the argument that the same sense of urgency exists as may have existed the day after 9/11. Certainly we are all interested in national security. A lot of Canadians feel that the government currently has a great deal of authority or ability to intervene, if it really thinks there is a clear and present danger. The War Measures Act for instance was always there as a tool, as an instrument for ministers to use.

One of the worrisome things that has been pointed out is a difference between Bill C-55 and the War Measures Act. Under the War Measures Act, the government had to come back to parliament within 48 hours. Under Bill C-55, a minister could exercise this expanded authority, not even report to cabinet for 15 days and not have it dealt with in parliament for 45 days. That is a broad and sweeping power. A lot could happen in 45 days and we would not have a chance to give it parliamentary oversight or scrutiny for 45 days. That alone should be cause and concern enough to the Canadian people that they should be asking us to put the brakes on the bill, let it sit over the summer and rethink if we really want to trade this amount of personal freedom for that amount of national safety.

This is one thing of which I am very critical. I guess to summarize the trend or theme of the bill, it very much expands ministerial authority. It very much diminishes parliamentary oversight. That is a very worrisome theme. That is actually a motif that I have noticed in virtually every piece of legislation introduced by the Liberals in the years that I have been here. There has been a tendency to expand ministerial authority and to diminish the ability of parliament to have true parliamentary oversight.

It is a slippery slope. It is a very tempting and seductive thing I suppose for the ruling party. I would remind the ruling party that it will not always be the ruling party. As it strips away parliament's abilities and powers in the way the government was intended it to be, the Liberals will find themselves on the opposition benches wondering why they do not have any opportunity to intervene, to make legislation and to act as a true parliament. The government will have been the architects of dismantling and downsizing the authority of parliament.

That is a very worrisome trend that is very evident in Bill C-55, enhancing the discretionary authority of ministers and diminishing our ability to exercise parliamentary oversight, especially as it pertains to such sensitive issues of personal freedom.

Another thing is, when we talk about an omnibus bill, most people are tempted to call it a Trojan horse. To achieve what most Canadians would support, which is an enhanced sense of national security, we believe that the bill has been loaded up as an absolute catch-all for other things that are incidental. They were perhaps part of a plan of the Liberal Party to have them introduced. The government is using this as the vehicle, the Trojan horse, for all kinds of other measures.

There are 15 different acts that will be amended by Bill C-55. These 15 different acts are under the jurisdiction of nine different standing committees. Yet the bill will only go to one standing committee, the transport committee.

I should point out for the record some of the acts that will be amended by the bill; the Aeronautics Act, the biological and toxin weapons convention implementation act, the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority Act, the Environmental Protection Act, the Criminal Code of Canada, the Explosives Act, the National Energy Board Act, the National Defence Act, the Hazardous Products Act and many more will be affected by Bill C-55. However the people in our caucus who are experts in these fields and sit on the appropriate committees will not have the chance to view this document or to move amendments at committee stage or to even scrutinize it at committee stage. They do not sit on the transport committee.

Our health expert, the member for Winnipeg North Centre, sits on the health committee. If this bill will have an impact on the health act, why is it not before the health committee so it can receive the all party scrutiny that we do at committee?

I am trying to itemize the number of legitimate reasons why the NDP caucus cannot support Bill C-55. This is why we are trying to alert the Canadian public that it needs far greater attention and scrutiny.

I am not only asking for more time to debate and less of a rush so that we can hear more brilliant speeches in the House of Commons. I am asking for more time so that we can engage Canadians, so that we consult Canadians, so that we can ask Canadians are they willing to trade these personal freedoms for these issues of national security? How much are Canadians willing to trade? How far as they willing to go?

Those are the questions Canadians deserve to be asked and we need to undertake a process by which we can get input and feedback.

We know it takes time for an issue to percolate from the House of Commons through the general public consciousness. I am sure Canadians are not aware that we are dealing with such a broad and sweeping piece of legislation right now. By the time this gets rammed through it will be too late.

By the time this session ends in a couple of days or a couple of weeks, Canadians still will not have been aware that we are undertaking changes to their personal freedoms that will change the way they live in this country and the way they view this country.

The one example people are fond of is the expanded enhanced ability to declare a military security zone. I think it is not being paranoid to assume this may be tied into the upcoming G-8 demonstrations scheduled for Kananaskis.

We saw how the government dealt with the gatherings and crowd control at APEC. We saw it again in Quebec City, ducking tear gas cannisters as we did. If the bill goes through, the government will have far broader, more enhanced sweeping powers and authorities in dealing with even peaceful demonstrators. That is another good reason why Canadians are concerned and why the NDP caucus has been critical of Bill C-55, just as we were of Bill C-36 and Bill C-42.

Some of the changes between Bill C-42 and Bill C-55 warrant mention. One of the changes to the military--

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

You are quite right. It is six of one and half a dozen of the other. I hope that the new minister will listen to reason and will change the provisions giving him so much power. On what grounds and for what reasons are we suddenly deciding to give one person powers that violate the freedom, the rights and the privacy of the people?

In my comments earlier, I did not mention one aspect of Bill C-42 that I disapproved. It is the new tax that also appears in Bill C-55, the bill on safety. In our view, that new tax is just another tax grab. Maybe our new minister will pay better attention to what was said in the Standing Committee on Finance at the time.

At the time, the minister had turned a deaf ear to this issue. At the finance committee, we were told that there had been no consultation and no impact study on this new tax. We have every right to wonder if this is not just another tax grab, similar to what the government did with the employment insurance fund. We were not the only ones to talk about grabbing. Several organizations have said they think this is unjustified and that this tax will have a major impact, especially in the small regions.

Time goes by so fast and there are so many other topics I would like to address. However, I ask my colleagues on the government side to really pay attention to what the opposition has to say in its criticisms, which have to to with all the problems these provisions will lead to, and I ask them to vote against this bill.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe a number of members have spoken on Bill C-55, which replaces the former Bill C-42, as my colleague was saying.

I would like to remind the House that this bill contains two major problems that trouble me. First, the creation of the controlled access military zones; and also the additional information about airline passengers. In fact, the government is giving itself the power to change, as it sees fit, the nature of the information that can be shared between the different services.

Based on the new provisions, the RCMP and CSIS will now have direct access to information held by air carriers. These provisions open the door to the use of personal information that goes far beyond the fight against terrorism.

Currently, a great many people are speaking out against this; even the privacy commissioner has spoken out against Bill C-55 with regards to the use of information on airline passengers.

This morning, Thursday May 30, a Quebec daily paper headline read “The Right of terror”. I would like to read a few lines from this article, as it makes one think, and I hope that it will get the members opposite thinking. The article says that:

National security and the fight against terrorism are becoming the best excuses to violate fundamental rights around the world.

Amnesty International, which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1977, is an organization that works for human rights. It recently published a report, which said that:

Governments are using the September 11 attacks and the fight against terrorism to pit security against human rights. They have used the excuse of September 11 to justify arbitrary detention or to deny the right to a fair trial. There is an increase in official hypocrisy. The fight against terrorism has become the excuse for all kinds of abuses.

Regarding Bill C-55 it says:

In Canada too civil liberties are being curtailed by anti-terrorism laws which were never proven to be necessary by the federal government. Again today, Parliament is debating a bill, Bill C-55, that gives government and security forces all kinds of new powers that would have been unacceptable to a majority of people only a few months ago.

It is a new version of Bill C-42, a bill which was withdrawn following a great deal of protest; however, the new version maintains its most controversial elements and, in some cases, it is even worse than the previous one.

The Bloc Quebecois and opposition parties are not the only ones saying this. Amnesty International produced a report to this effect. Several editorial writers, journalists and agencies are condemning this bill.

Another quote:

Amid general indifference, the Parliament of Canada is about to pass an act the severity of which the government was never able to justify, which is rather serious.

But at the same time, it will end up justifying all kinds of abuses against human rights by repressive regimes that would then be able to honestly say they were only imitating a great democratic country such as Canada.

This is what happens when we start making compromises on fundamental rights.

I believe it is clear. It is really unacceptable and this is what we are speaking up against in this clause, which deals with the power of one single person, a minister, who will create security zones, now called controlled access military zones under this clause. As I said earlier, he will be able to come to my riding where there is an armoury.

We have nothing against the fact that we have to protect ourselves and the government must protect its military equipment by designating such zones. However, this is a far cry from deciding at any given time, under circumstances leading the minister to believe that his security is threatened, to commandeer places and lands without ever consulting anybody, without ever consulting the public, elected representatives, and municipal or provincial governments. He will decide to step in, thinking he is entitled to do so.

The minister could use what is called a reasonable moment. We really do not know what the word reasonably means. One single person, the finance minister, will be able to decide, sorry, it is the defence minister. I am confused because the new minister comes from finance and is now replacing the former Minister of National Defence. All this is a bit ambiguous—

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to take part in the debate. I think it is my third time.

Now I have had a chance to examine Bill C-55 very carefully, line by line with Bill C-42 its predecessor, which the government withdrew to try to do a better job of it. I think the happy news is that Bill C-55 is much improved over its predecessor. I think the legislation is better written. I think, on the limitations on interference of fundamental liberties, a balance has been attempted there and the government has gone a long way to achieving that balance.

This is not to say that the bill still does not have problems and I will allude to those, but I will pick up on several of the issues that opposition members and some Liberal members have expressed concerns about.

The military controlled access zones in Bill C-55 are much, much more limited than what was defined in Bill C-42. Notwithstanding what the previous speaker said, if we go to the legislation we will see that the controlled access zones specifically are limited to where the military might have to go to respond to an emergency. There are paragraphs that qualify the range of that zone. They are very explicit that these zones can only be established when there is a clear concern for security or public safety.

What we are really responding to is a situation where there is an emergency event somewhere in the country, perhaps a terrorist event, and the military has to go in there and of course establish a controlled access zone to protect the military. It is very, very different than what people say this has to do with, throwing a cordon around the Quebec national assembly. It is just not true.

Second, the improvements to getting information about passenger travel, one of the important features of this bill is it provides legislative rationale for access to the passenger manifests of people travelling on aircraft coming into Canada. Again notwithstanding the histrionics of the privacy commissioner this bill is very, very modest in setting parameters around what is required or available to police and security authorities from passengers that are travelling on aircraft coming into and going out of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I refer you to schedule 1 in this bill which did not exist in Bill C-42. It defines very, very clearly exactly what type of information the authorities are entitled to get. In that context I would suggest that the bill does not go far enough. It merely requires when passengers are coming from overseas or wherever else into Canada that the airlines surrender the passport number, the name, address and certain ticket information and it is not consistent with technological capability, and indeed I think it creates a problem.

It is interesting. The president of the United States just signed into law not two weeks ago the enhanced border security and visa entry reform act. What that does for the Americans, and we need to think about this very carefully as Canadians, is it requires the American immigration authorities to move immediately to set up the ability to electronically scan travel documents for biometric information by which they mean fingerprints and faces. In other words, where the Americans are going, and it is defined in the bill, is that by the year 2004 every person entering the United States, including it would appear from my reading of that act, people crossing the border from Canada, Canadians crossing into the United States, will be required to have a document that can be machine scanned for fingerprints and photographs.

I do not propose that we require fingerprinting of travellers coming into Canada. I do not accept that. I think we are a long way from that, but I would suggest that it would be consistent to put in the schedule now that the authorities would be entitled to get photographic information from the airlines. In other words, I think it is very important for Canada to be up front with Canadians and people coming to Canada that the technology is going to come for photo identification and we are going to need to use it, because very clearly we have a terrorist threat out there and photo identification rather than just a passport number and address gives a greater certainty that there will not be a mistake when somebody is travelling into Canada and this information is being previewed by the security and police authorities in the ongoing search for terrorists. I think we should look at that.

Finally, my real reservation with the bill still centres on the issue of interim orders. I understand the rationale for this provision in the bill. What we found in the situation of September 11 was that ministers were suddenly faced with emergency situations where they had to make decisions which involved cordoning off areas and limiting access of people.

The difficulty is that unless we define these powers in law then in a limited emergency situation such as what happened in the United States we may have a situation where ministers are forced to go outside the law in order to authorize actions that are absolutely necessary under the limited emergency. If we have a terrorist attack for instance anywhere in Canada in a large urban centre the transportation minister, the health minister and the environment minister may have to take prompt action to respond to that kind of attack.

Right now we do not have that type of power in legislation, so the idea is fine. The problem with the idea is these powers of making an interim order in a significant risk situation. We are not talking about a national emergency. We are talking about a highly localized event that is an emergency, and that is why the member for Calgary Centre does not seem to have read the legislation. He seems to have been reading briefings on the legislation but he is not focused.

The interim orders pertain to a limited emergency in a limited circumstance, but the way it is phrased now is that when the minister issues this emergency order this order stands for 45 days before it needs cabinet confirmation. I believe that is too long a time. I do not really see why any interim order responding to a sudden emergency requires 45 days before it gets cabinet collective approval. I would think a seven day period is certainly enough. Surely the cabinet can be brought together after a terrorist attack or similar limited emergency within seven days. To extend it to 45 days unnecessarily gives too much power to the minister, and we do not need to go that way.

Furthermore, I am concerned that the interim orders fall outside the Statutory Instruments Act, and that again is something that has been brought up by the Bloc Quebecois. I think it is a very valid concern and I would urge the minister to look at that again because the minister may make a mistake, and much as sometimes I am critical about the civil service I think we need the input of the leading authorities in the Privy Council Office when this type of situation occurs, so I think that needs to be re-examined.

Finally, there is the question of parliamentary involvement and not having to table anything before parliament until 15 days after parliament is sitting. Of course, if parliament is not sitting this creates a problem of many months before parliament is consulted.

I would urge the minister to examine these latter issues very carefully. I think they are very crucial to a bill that is otherwise very well framed notwithstanding, if I may say so, some of the histrionics that have been circulating about this piece of legislation both in this Chamber and, I regret to say, by officers of parliament outside this Chamber.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise again to speak to Bill C-55. It is important that the people from Quebec and Canada who are listening understand in what terrible context this bill is being submitted to the House.

If I may say so, if we could have chosen the timing for the introduction of Bill C-55, it would certainly not have been at a time when the Liberal government and its ministers are up to their ears in scandal. Why? Because never in Canadian history has a bill ever given so much power to individuals in a ministerial position. The defence minister is not alone. The bill also gives powers to the ministers of health, transport, immigration, the environment, and a score of ministers who, under Bill C-55, will be given exceptional powers that will not be subject to the approval of this House. That is the most terrible aspect of Bill C-55, and that was the most terrible aspect of Bill C-42.

Why has the Bloc Quebecois done such good work? Because we had just one question to ask, one thing to say to the government and all its ministers, and that was “What were you unable to do on September 11 that bills like C-42 and C-55 would have allowed you to do? When you can give us an answer, we will talk”.

That is why Bill C-42 is no longer on the order. Bill C-44 was introduced because an important measure had to be implemented following September 11, so that the government could provide personal information to the Americans, based on their own formula, in order for airplanes to be allowed to fly over the United States. That was the only measure the government needed. We approved that bill in the House so that our airline companies could resume their operations.

Now we have Bill C-55. Bill C-42 had 98 pages from which they removed the part dealing with personal information to be supplied to the U.S. as I just explained. Believe it or not, this new Bill C-55 has 102 pages. It is a bigger bill, one which still gives exceptional powers to ordinary individuals and ordinary ministers who, on their own initiative, can designate military zones. For his part, the health minister could make an interim order and make vaccination mandatory. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms would not apply to all this.

Orders in council and interim orders, which would have the force of regulations, and which the ministers I listed a moment ago would have the power to make, would be beyond the control of this House and beyond the control of the regulatory process, which requires that regulations be reviewed by the Privy Council to ensure they are consistent with the charter of rights and freedoms.

For 15 days and up to 45 days, the decisions of a single individual, of a single minister, could affect the whole population of a whole territory, and the House would not be allowed to look at them. Worse still, within controlled access military zones, people would not be able to call for the protection of the courts or their lawyers. The would lose their rights, especially the right to sue the government.

Of course, this is what we are opposing and what other opposition parties are opposing. The government is trampling on rights, on the authority of a single person.

To stress that the current debate is not about party politics, but is a societal debate, especially on Bill C-55, I will read quotes from various sources including newspaper articles. I will give the dates. On May 2, 2002, an article in the newspaper La Presse read as follows “The privacy commissioner condemns Bill C-55. Some measures are directly inspired by totalitarian states, he warned”.

That was in the daily La Presse , but this statement was also made in most newspapers in Canada.

It is following these discussions that the Prime Minister of Canada, who even refused to answer our questions on Bill C-55 in the House, went so far as to say, outside the House, “There are days when I am a democrat and then there are days when I am a dictator”. This came following discussions on Bill C-55, when journalists were asking him “Can you explain to us the content of Bill C-55?”

The problem for Liberal members in this House is that they have not read Bill C-55 and, more importantly, they do not understand its nature. Moreover, the leader of the government, the Prime Minister himself said, of course, “Wait, we will discuss it in committee”. This is what the Liberal government spokesperson said.

On May 19, 2002, the headline in the daily Le Soleil read “Anti-Terrorism, Half Truth and Misleading Statement: Privacy Commissioner accuses Solicitor General of using September 11 Attacks to give Police Undue Extra Powers”.

We are talking here about the solicitor general, who is at the centre of the scandal condemned by several opposition parties in the House and who, of course, was defending Bill C-55, which deals with powers that will be given to him and to other ministers. Again, the privacy commissioner was calling the solicitor general to order.

On May 29, 2002, Le Devoir wrote “September 11 has hurt human rights. Amnesty International has taken stock. Canada has followed the world tendency by adopting anti-terrorism legislation, and by attacking fundamental rights, privacy rights”.

Today, Michel C. Auger, who is a highly respected journalist, writes in the Journal de Montréal that “All over the world, the law of terror, national security and anti-terrorism are becoming the best excuses to violate fundamental rights. The fight against terrorism has become a pretext for all sorts of abuse”. And he talks about Canada and says “Today again, parliamentarians are discussing”.

This is in today's edition of the Journal de Montréal . It says “Today again, parliamentarians are discussing another bill, namely Bill C-55, which gives the government and security forces all sorts of new powers that would have been unacceptable to the public just a few months ago”.

This is what we are talking about. In this regard, it is difficult to have to speak in the House and, particularly to get through to Quebec Liberal members, who hardly spoke on this. Of course, the majority of other Liberal members and, particularly the ministers affected by Bill C-55, toe the party line.

We heard earlier a Liberal member say “I trust the minister of defence”. It is not even the same person; a new one has been in office since the shuffle a few days ago. Last weekend, he surely saw that the former defence minister, who had been in office for several years, disappeared among the scandals. Of course, we have now a new defence minister, a banker.

I have a great deal of respect for bankers, but what have bankers been doing in the last 10 years in Canada? They have been digging into our pockets to show profits to their shareholders every quarter. This is what they have been doing. They have been raising fees, monthly charges, for all the small users of banking services, and they have paid less interest to seniors on their investments. This is what bankers are doing today: they take away from the poor to make their shareholders rich.

We now have a banker as minister of defence. We are going trust this new minister of defence and give him the power to designate controlled access military zones that extend beyond military property.

The Bloc Quebecois recognizes that the government and the Canadian Forces must defend their facilities; this it true. However, we have a problem with Bill C-55 allowing the government to go beyond its territory to protect, as they say or as they try to say, personnel and property that could be located outside defence establishments.

Controlled access military zones will be created, and the new minister of defence, a former banker, will make this decision alone without consulting anyone, especially not the provincial governments and those responsible for safety in most Canadian provinces.

That is what the Bloc Quebecois opposes and what all Canadians, particularly Quebecers, are concerned about.

With all the scandals involving various ministers, why is the government so intent on conferring upon individual ministers the power to make decisions that, in an emergency, will no longer be submitted to this House or to provincial authorities?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I understand that we are now debating the main motion. I listened with great interest to our colleague who was just recently elected to the House of Commons, the member for Bonavista—Trinity—Conception, and actually could not believe my ears in terms of what he was prepared to do to give his government so much licence with the bill. I listened to him today and heard him say that we have to place confidence in our government, we have to give the government the room to make decisions. He talked about World War II and used that as an example.

I have to say for those of us in the federal NDP that we are actually appalled at the scope and the dangers that are inherent in the bill. From the very first day that it was introduced, formerly as Bill C-42, now as Bill C-55, we have spoken out against the principle and the substance of the bill. How much room does the member want the government to have? It would have so much power under the bill. The power that would be conferred upon the minister and the cabinet is so enormous, and I think many members of opposition parties and organizations that are monitoring the bill have pointed out that many of our civil liberties would be at risk.

I would really beg to differ from the comments that the hon. member made. This is not about having trust and confidence in our government. This is about having an intelligent debate, looking at a very significant piece of legislation and determining the proper balance that is required to provide security but not infringe upon the democratic and civil rights of all Canadians.

I do not know whether the member has fully studied the bill, has followed the debate prior to getting here or has read some of the commentary and the analysis, but I can only say that having read the analysis and looked at the bill, one cannot come to any conclusion but to state that the bill is fundamentally wrong. To somehow equate the situation to what took place during World War II and the emergency measures and powers that required is a false premise. In fact, other members of the House have talked about the emergency War Measures Act that was enacted 30 years ago. I guess one of the really scary things is that even in that time, when the emergency War Measures Act was brought forward by the Right Hon. Mr. Trudeau, prime minister at the time, it was very controversial, but even that was a time limited thing. It was something that was not enshrined in legislation forever in a permanent way.

I was a young person attending university at the time the War Measures Act was brought in and I felt appalled that our Canadian government would go to that length and basically violate the civil liberties of people in Quebec under the guise that these full powers had to be put forward. However, I have to say that in looking at Bill C-55 we are now facing a much more serious situation in terms of the impact of this legislation and what it will do.

I wanted to begin by responding to the comments made by the new member for Bonavista—Trinity—Conception. I certainly welcome him to the House. However, the idea of giving the government carte blanche, of just sort of turning over all and every power to a minister or a cabinet under the name of security is something that I find very offensive and deeply disturbing. I, as one member of parliament, and all of us in the federal NDP caucus will do and say everything we can to make sure that the bill does not go through.

We are now back to debating the main motion and reviewing the provisions of the bill before us. I do not think that Canadians really have an idea of the far ranging scope of the bill and how many other pieces of legislation it impacts on. For example, the bill before us would amend the biological and toxin weapons convention. It would amend the Aeronautics Act. It would amend the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority Act. It would amend: the Canadian Environmental Protection Act; the criminal code; the Department of Health Act; the Organization of American States inter-American convention against the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives and other related materials; the Export and Import Permits Act; the Food and Drugs Act; the Hazardous Products Act; the Marine Transportation Security Act; the National Defence Act; the National Energy Board Act; the Navigable Waters Protection Act; the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act; the Pest Control Products Act; the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act; the Quarantine Act; the Radiation Emitting Devices Act; the Canada Shipping Act and the Canada Shipping Act, 2001; and it would enact the biological and toxin weapons convention implementation act.

That is an incredible scope. I think we can begin to see just how far-reaching the impact of Bill C-55, if it were enacted, would be on all kinds of other pieces of legislation that have been debated in this House. We in the federal NDP feel very concerned about the fact that the federal government is now trying to rush through this legislation. The first piece of legislation that came forward, Bill C-42, drew enormous public opposition from individuals, organizations and the media. Clearly the government had to respond to that opposition and withdraw the bill. It has now come back to the House with Bill C-55.

Although there are some changes in the bill, upon examining it the reality is that the fundamental premise of the bill, the conferring of enormous power to a minister and a cabinet away from parliament and away from public oversight, is still contained in this new version. For that reason we in the NDP continue to oppose the bill.

My colleague from Dartmouth, in speaking to the amendment, mentioned her concerns regarding what would happen at the upcoming G-8 summit in Kananaskis. She spoke about her concerns regarding what would happen to young people, seniors and members of the labour movement who are planning to gather to voice their legitimate right to dissent around what is going to take place at the G-8 summit. I certainly concur with her concerns. One has to question the bill and be suspicious as to whether or not the government's intent is to use its provisions to shut down legitimate protest and shut down the voice of dissent.

I, along with my colleagues in the federal NDP and activists from across the country, participated in the demonstrations and the protest that took place in Quebec City last April on the free trade agreement of the Americas. We saw the kind of police brutality and violence that took place in responding to legitimate demonstrations. I find it very scary that this legislation will legitimize and increase the powers of law enforcement agencies as well as government to stifle protests and to stifle dissent.

I am sure there are members of the Liberal backbench who privately share many of our concerns but are being whipped into place to get this legislation through the House. I sure wish some of those members would speak out, not only within their own caucus but publicly as well, because what we are about to do today is something that will set into motion a piece of legislation that will be here for the long term, for the foreseeable future.

I am proud to rise in the House to speak against this legislation and to encourage other members to do so as well. This is a bad piece of legislation. It goes too far. It tramples on the civil rights of Canadians and should not be supported.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

No, I do not think it is necessarily for the best. Such extraordinary powers could be given to such an individual. This is of enormous concern to me.

True enough, this is the aftermath of the September 11 events, but I would like somebody to explain to me in a very practical way how the actions taken would have been different if Bill C-55 had been passed. What difference would it have made? Now, they want to give the impression that the government is getting more powers to act. That is a way to avoid all discussion or debate on whether the existing powers have been properly used.

The same thing happened in the United States. We have seen that especially in the last few weeks, when we have learned that there had been serious warnings some time before the events about impending threats.

It is not always the theoretical powers that count when events such as those of September 11 happen, but the ability to use the existing powers. There is already an impressive array of powers to ensure control and security.

Unforeseen disasters can always happen, of course. Concerning this, we should be careful here, because the government will boast that it has passed legislation. This is not the first time it introduces a security bill since September 11. There was another one in the last session. That bill, Bill C-42, was even worse. But many unacceptable elements still remain.

We are now in a situation where, at the end of this session, in June, just before we leave for the summer, the government would like to pass this bill at second reading, send it to committee and, I am sure, ram it through, in the hope to pass it before the summer.

I am quite worried, because they are using the same tactics they used at first with Bill C-42: they want it deal with fairly quickly, arguing that it is not all that bad, that in fact everything is fine, that these powers are necessary. Face with fierce opposition from the Bloc Quebecois, other parties and the general public, the government relented and admitted that, in some instances, it went too far.

Yet, it is the same government that said, when it introduced Bill C-42, “No, no, everything is fine. Do not worry”.

It is very dangerous to improvise in this type of situation and to go too fast. Governments often take advantage of situations. We saw it after September 11. It is not unique to this country; other countries have done so, and Canada is going down the same path of taking advantage of situations. When people have safety concerns, the government increases its powers under the guise of improving safety. This is happening once again. In this case, the power is in the hands of a member of the executive and not necessarily in the hands of parliament. This tendency is quite common. It is political opportunism for the government to increase its powers in such a way.

I hope the House will exercise caution with regard to this bill. It will take time. Realistically, I do not think that we will succeed in convincing the Liberals at the second reading stage. We have reached the point where we are discussing an amendment. Where should that debate take place? Before which committee of the House?

When the time comes to consider this bill in greater detail, the committee will have to take its time. Several people have already sounded the alarm. They told us, “Wait a minute, this goes much too far. The government is taking advantage of a particular context”.

As we distance ourselves from September 11, and emotion has already diminished, the basis for decisions will be much sounder; they will not be improvised, taken in a panic or tainted by the opportunism of those who wield power and want more of it.

We need to be cautious. As I said earlier, I have a lot of difficulty with hasty decisions. So much the better if the government is sent back to the drawing board now. I would like the Liberals to say “Wait a minute, this is going much too far”, and come back to a more modest and realistic approach to improving security. Again, there should be very concrete examples of what was not done and should have been. From a legislative point of view, I would like to know what tools were not used that would have been necessary in practical terms. I do not want to hear general statements about stricter legislation being required.

Legislation is one thing, but the means to implement it are something else. How can we ensure that our security is protected? At the same time, let us not delude ourselves: this is a huge territory. However great the means available, they remain modest. While not the primary target of terrorist acts, we are not totally without protection either.

In discussions and in the media, we hear that individuals use our territory to serve in organizations having international links with terrorism. This is the most worrisome aspect, and something we have been suspecting for a while. Of course, we must continue to deal with the issue. Secret services and information services have a key role to play in this regard, but we must be aware that those powers should not be used in an abusive way or in all kinds of internal situations having nothing to do with the fight against terrorism. We must target our action carefully. These are normal and legitimate concerns.

It is not because we oppose this bill that we believe nothing should be done, but on the other hand the government does not need disproportionate powers. And in this case, it is not the government, but a single minister. I have a great deal of difficulty with that. All the powers are given to the minister of defence. This is a huge concern. I hope we will hear from the hon. members on this.

The hon. member for Mount Royal said publicly that he disagreed. When he votes, I hope that he will act according to what he said in the past, when he stated that this was unacceptable. I wish that other colleagues of his will do the same. The best way for them to be heard is also to send a message to their government. We are not asking them to defeat the government, just to send it a message saying that what is happening in this bill is nonsense, and the government will do its homework.

At worst, if ever the bill gets to committee, let us hope that it will not be rammed through, in keeping with the government strategy whereby it tries to pass the bill in a hurry before the summer recess, only to ease its conscience, saying it has done something for security. In real life, it is not so. The government will have given itself major powers that might lead to serious abuse.

Several people have already sounded the alarm. I will conclude by saying that I hope to hear the Liberal members, not just here and there in the hallways, but by exercising later the real power they have to stand up and vote.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise this morning on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois to speak to Bill C-55.

Bill C-55 is a reincarnation of Bill C-42. Why was Bill C-42 not approved unanimously, or at least by the majority of parliamentarians in this House? Why did they not support Bill C-42?

First, because of the Bloc Quebecois' performance. MPs from every opposition party did what they had to do to make the government aware of the mistake it would make if Bill C-42 was passed as drafted. Naturally, opposition MPs tried repeatedly to ask questions of the government during oral questions period. In committee, they tried to do their job as parliamentarians and asked those who would be affected to various degrees by Bill C-42 for their input. The majority of witnesses who appeared before the committee said clearly that the federal government was on the verge of making a major management mistake by passing this bill as drafted.

The Bloc Quebecois was not satisfied to just state its position and speak up against Bill C-42; it did its part by participating in the debate to make the government aware of the problem, and putting forward amendments to fix the bill, which smacked of dictatorships and gave responsibility to just one person, for which the government could have suffered some serious consequences should one minister make an error in judgment.

As a result of the Bloc Quebecois' position and the quality of the speeches made by the Bloc Quebecois' leader, the parliamentary leader, various critics and the work done by party staff—we put forward some worthwhile and quality amendments—the government had no choice but to say “This makes sense. What they are saying is important. We are on the verge of making a mistake. We must change our bill”. This is how Bill C-55 came about.

However, Bill C-55 does not get to the bottom of things. The government put back in the bill part of what the Bloc Quebecois' amendment had modified, it removed what lobbyists did not want to see in Bill C-42, what was bothering or intimidating them. We are talking about those who have connections, or have access to various ministers on the government side. The government did not want to disappoint them. This part of the bill was eliminated.

The bill before the House has been improved, but I believe it is still unacceptable. Why? Because it would give extremely dangerous powers to a single minister who, since he may act in a moment of panic or exercise responsibilities without consulting cabinet, might make an unfortunate decision.

Of course, if it were Friday, the Prime Minister would defend his national defence minister, as he did for the public works minister. On Friday, he defended the minister. What happened on Saturday? On Sunday we learned that the two same ministers were gone. Yet, on Friday, they were considered to be good ministers. They had done what they had to. The decision they had made was important. On Friday, everything was fine.

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am deeply concerned that again we have this legislation before the House in its present form. It is especially disturbing that the government has decided to refuse the reasoned and rational requests for major amendments. The bill has to be changed. Like its predecessors Bill C-36 and Bill C-45, which was wisely withdrawn, it gives priority to an anti-democratic measure taken in the name of protecting our democracy. It fails the basic test of protecting our civil liberties from the state.

We are a country with a proud tradition of fighting for democracy. On Monday, I was dockside for the return of one of our proud naval vessels from anti-al-Qaeda patrols in the Arabian Sea. It is alarming to see the paradox of our brave sailors putting their lives on the line for our democracy while parliamentarians are trying to rush through a bill which would take powers from parliament and allow more single decisions from ministers to deprive Canadians of their civil liberties.

As an example, let us first look at the part of the bill that I find most troubling, the so-called military security zones from Bill C-42. These have now been changed to “controlled access military zones” in Bill C-55. The bill, with amendments, stipulates that these zones can be created only to protect Department of National Defence property or foreign military assets within Canada. These changes do not sufficiently address our concerns about how the power to create these zones could be abused. The basic message of the bill is that all of us, and including the very institutions Canadians have created to express their democracy and protect their freedoms, like parliament, like a free press, like public debate, have to trust the decision making ability of a single minister to restrict access to a designated place for any length of time the minister would like and we should not be able to question the decision. In fact we may not even publicly know about the decision.

Given our history of policy over reaction at APEC or in Quebec City or at the G-20 meetings just down the street from our Chamber, I frankly do not trust any single minister to protect the civil liberties of Canadians. Given the state of allegations of scandal and mismanagement being levelled at the ministers opposite, I am not sure that any Canadians trust any single minister to protect their civil liberties when left behind closed doors, yet this is what Bill C-55 is asking us to do. By doing this, the bill is attacking the democratic values those brave sailors who came home on Monday are fighting to defend.

Last year, along with my leader, I met with women from the Muslim community in Halifax and Dartmouth and we heard their very real fear of the legislative changes that the government was bringing forward in response to the September 11 attacks in the United States. Many of them came to Canada because they believed that our democratic traditions would protect them from oppression, but this series of security bills, of which Bill C-55 is the latest, makes them afraid to answer their doors: once again it may be the police taking them away because of the ethnicity of their name. Specifically, I wonder if provisions of the bill could be used against them because of their religion or their ethnic background.

I have been with teachers opposed to this bill because of the attacks on their civil liberties. I have met with immigrant service organizations who tell me of the fears of their clients. This legislative reaction of the government in response to the September 11 attack goes way too far and, we believe, way too fast. Where is the sunset clause on these measures?

One of the ideas touted by numerous witnesses on Bill C-36 was the idea of an American style sunset clause. This would have had the effect of forcing the government to reintroduce, debate and amend the legislation for it to take effect for another period of time. A three-year time limit affecting different aspects of the legislation was suggested by numerous witnesses.

The New Democratic Party proposed an amendment that addressed these concerns. However, the government had already decided that it would only include a watered down sunset clause by which the House and the Senate would vote after five years for a motion to extend the investigative hearings and preventive arrest sections, two of the most controversial measures in the bill. Though this is better than no clause at all, it is not a sunset clause in the true sense. Rather than the government having to reintroduce and re-examine legislation, this would simply require that the government tell its members and senators to vote an extension of that which currently exists in Bill C-36. The government refused to sunset Bill C-36 and it has never even entertained debate on a sunset clause for Bill C-55.

In just a few weeks there will be a G-8 summit meeting in Kananaskis, Alberta. I was amused yesterday to see that the member for Wild Rose was on his feet calling protestors terrorists for insurance purposes even before any protest has taken place. Even though I fully expect that the people in the Calgary march and the demonstrations will be peaceful and I believe that if there is a protest village in the bush the only violence committed will be against the mosquitoes and the black fly population, I fear for the protestors' safety because of reactions of people like the member for Wild Rose, people who have already called these peaceful labour and anti-globalization activists terrorists, a word that has serious legal consequences thanks to Bill C-36 and Bill C-55.

After seeing the violence at the summit of the Americas in Quebec City and at the APEC conference in Vancouver, I wonder how long it will take for the minister of defence or others in the government to simply start using these laws to stifle legitimate dissent that threatens the political future of the minister, dissent that does not have any real threat for the nation. Do not get me wrong, I oppose vandalism, even of McDonald's, but I also oppose any law that would equate these actions with the evil events of September 11.

I am strongly suspicious of the government. The tens of thousands of peaceful protestors are also suspicious of the increasing use of police force against demonstrators. The stubbornness of the government in refusing reasonable amendments to this historic legislation gives credence to these suspicions.

I believe in a democratic Canada. I take our civil liberties, given in our charter, extremely seriously. Let us take the time and make the effort to produce a law that protects our security while it defends our civil liberties in this anxious period in our history.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-55, which replaces Bill C-42, which was withdrawn by the government. Bill C-55 was introduced in the House on April 29, 2002. Bill C-42 was withdrawn by the government because of strong criticism from the Bloc Quebecois in particular.

I would like to summarize the main features of Bill C-55 which are still problematic for the Bloc Quebecois. I would like to talk about certain points, such as controlled access military zones.

In Bill C-55, the government has tightened up the criteria for designating controlled access military zones, having listened to the Bloc Quebecois' arguments. However, our objections to certain points in Bill C-42 have not been reflected in the current bill and this is what bothers us.

It is still the minister alone who has the authority to designate controlled access military zones, the same minister who neglected to inform his government about the prisoners of war. Now he has been replaced by a minister whose experience lies in the banking world. What worries us a bit is that the latter has not yet proven his worth. He is responsible for an entire department. We hope that he will make the right decisions and that he can take a close look at this so that some of the problems in Bill C-55 are ironed out.

With everything that has been going on in the House recently, giving so much power to one minister, who is new to the department, is enough to worry us and the public.

One of our biggest worries is that it is still the minister alone who has the authority to designate controlled access military zones. In addition, the approval of the government of Quebec is still not required to designate a controlled access military zone in its jurisdiction. There is also the criterion of “reasonably necessary”. What does this mean? This criterion for determining the borders of military security zones has not really changed; it is still very discretionary.

The minister could, for reasons known only to him and without consulting anyone, define what is deemed reasonably necessary. In the largest city in my riding, there is an armoury. With this power that is conferred upon the minister alone, if he deemed necessary to protect his establishment or his property and if he deemed necessary to extend this protection to a larger area, he could, without notifying or consulting anyone, create a security zone.

I do not have anything against the fact that it may be necessary to protect a certain area and to ensure adequate security in a potentially dangerous situation, but perhaps it would be appropriate to notify the authorities, the property owners and the people.

In that regard, we think that it is difficult to confer that kind of power upon one single person, without any obligation to consult. That person alone will decide what is or is not good, and this is very dangerous, as the precedents have shown.

There have been cases where the minister alone has made a decision that has caused prejudice to those people affected by it. It is inadmissible that such power be conferred upon one single person in our society. It is like a dictatorship. It is just as if, one morning, someone woke up and said, like the Prime Minister did recently, “One day I am a democrat, and the next day I am a dictator”.

I am sure you agree with me that there is cause for concern when this kind of responsibility is given to one single person who has all the powers, as is the case now under Bill C-55.

As I said, the creation of a controlled access military zone or the making of interim orders would cause prejudice to certain people. These people could not always take legal action for loss, damage or injury.

If a situation like the one I was describing a moment ago arose, those who were wronged would have no legal recourse. It makes no sense. The power that would be given to one single person is immense: he would decide and he would apply his law, it is tantamount to a dictatorship. People would not have any avenue of legal recourse, could not find out how to defend their rights, because the minister alone would have decided everything. This is not what is called a democracy.

The grounds of international relations and the defence of national security, for which controlled access military zones could be created in Bill C-42, were not kept in Bill C-55. We can just imagine that now, any reason is grounds enough, as I described earlier.

There is another problem. It has to do with interim orders. The new bill still contains provisions allowing different ministers, and in one case, public officials, to use interim orders.

With regards to these provisions, there are two minor changes: tabling copies before parliament within 15 days, and the shortening of the period for which the order has effect without approval of the cabinet from 90 to 45 days

It also lacks an advance verification for consistency with the charter and the enabling legislation by the Clerk of the Privy Council.

The means justify the end. It makes no sense. To see what is going on right now, the way powers are being grabbed, someone can say “We will not consult anyone”, and no one can say a word. People may be wronged, but for reasons that the minister or certain officials find reasonably necessary—even though we do not really know what this means—all kinds of rights can be trampled without any consultations.

Based on the definition of the word dictatorship in the dictionary, it appears that this is where this bill is leading us. It is very alarming.

There is also the question of information. Bill C-55 will allow two other persons, the RCMP commissioner and the director of CSIS, to obtain information directly from the air carriers and reservation and passenger information systems operators. This means that privacy will be violated. They will obtain the passenger list.

The list can be distributed to the RCMP commissioner and the director of the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service for any reason, without those involved being informed and in violation of their rights. This is what happened back in Stalin's day.

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to speak to Bill C-55.

I will summarize the process by which Bill C-55 ended up the House today. Everyone of course recalls the tragic events of September 11 in New York City. As a result, all countries panicked somewhat and decided to tighten up security and to enact legislation, which was more or less logical, because of this unacknowledged and officially undeclared war against terrorism.

For instance, I remember Bill S-23, an act to amend the Customs Act and to make related amendments to other acts, which in fact modified all procedures, particularly those involving the border with the U.S. and Canadian air or shipping entry points.

Even today, I will not criticize Bill S-23. It was, over all, a bill that made sense. It is still my position, however, that we moved far too quickly in passing it. We could have passed it with a provision to revisit it again in the House, maybe six months, a year, or eighteen months later, to see whether our decision had been the right one.

A number of members, if not the majority, have perhaps exaggerated or over-reacted to the events of September 11. The outcome of this was some of the bills that got introduced, such as Bill C-55.

Naturally, the ancestor of Bill C-55, though not much older than it, was Bill C-42. Hon. members will recall, in connection with that bill, that the Bloc Quebecois was strongly opposed to it, because we found it far too exaggerated. The whole opposition was against Bill C-42, as were some members of the party in power. The press was against it. Canadian rights and freedoms advocates were against it.

What has this government done? It has simply reproduced or cloned—cloning is very much a current issue—another bill, namely Bill C-55, by slightly altering the embryos to finally produce a new baby called Bill C-55.

Bill C-55 deals primarily with controlled access military zones. If we are not mistaken, a controlled access military zone means that the government and—this is what is especially hard to take—some ministers have discretionary power. Even some public officials could say tomorrow morning “We are taking control of this part of a city. It thus becomes a controlled access military zone”.

Can we really let ministers have the power to designate a zone and have it controlled by military personnel, when we know that many of them are not even able to control their own staff or themselves? I am referring here to the infamous sponsorship contracts. We have to wonder about this.

Considering how some of these ministers are currently behaving and spending taxpayers' money, will they be able to designate and control a controlled access military zone in an intelligent way?

I am personally affected by Bill C-55, because of my political convictions. The government opposite keeps telling us “Ours is a flexible federation. Ours is a federation that is in contact and in touch with the provinces”. Not true. Under Bill C-55, the federal government will never consult the provinces to find out what they think of a controlled access military zone. The decision will be made unilaterally and the provinces will have to deal with the problems.

Another part of the bill that concerns me has to do with the dimensions of the controlled access military zone. The bill provides that the dimensions of the zone cannot be greater than is reasonably necessary. What does reasonably necessary mean? It does not necessarily mean the same thing for me or for the hon. member for Charlevoix. My idea of what is reasonably necessary is completely different from that of each member in this House, including you, Madam Speaker. Yet, decisions on these dimensions are left up to the Minister of National Defence. He is a recruit. He has just been appointed to this position. His predecessor is gone; I do not know why, but I have an idea. The new minister will invoke what is reasonably necessary. Will he be reasonable or not? This is excessively dangerous.

Something else bothers me. Controlled access military zone may be created for reasons of international relations or national defence or security. The G-8 conference will be held in Kananaskis this summer. Will the Kananaskis region be designated as a controlled access military zone for reasons of international relations and to ensure the safety and security of participants? I do not want to be a scaremonger, but I would not be surprised if the passing of Bill C-55 lead to the designation of a huge area all around Kananaskis, which is a small secluded estate in a forest in the northern part of a province, as a controlled access military zone.

We should think twice. We are playing games with people's freedom. Is this bill not similar to the legislation known as the War Measures Act put forward in 1970 by then Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau?

As my colleague from Regina—Qu'Appelle indicated, to deal with a small group of 12 or 15 FLQ members, legislation was passed which violated the rights of thousands of Quebecers.

Unfortunately, I see that my time is up, even though I have a lot more to say.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, I wish to say a few words on the bill before the House today. I am glad the solicitor general is in the House. Maybe he will take a serious note of some of the changes that people want made in the legislation.

I want to begin by saying that the bill is known as the public safety act, 2002. It replaces Bill C-42 which was introduced of course in the wake of the great tragedy in the United States on September 11. Today marks the official end of the cleanup of ground zero in New York. The appropriate ceremonies will take place there sometime today.

I suppose we can say that the bill represents an improved package for public safety initiatives over what we had in the previous package, which was the government's response in the wake of September 11.

September 11 was a great tragedy for the people in the United States. It was also a great international tragedy. Many people died, including many Canadians. I think some of the reaction of September 11 was to overreact in terms of our response to a very legitimate fight against terrorism.

I think the very first bill the government brought in was a bill of great overreaction. I guess that is probably a fact now. The government then withdrew the bill because of widespread public criticism throughout the country. There were all kinds of objections from civil liberty groups, parliamentarians from all political parties in the House of Commons, many commentators, people in provincial governments and the like. Bill C-42 was withdrawn and Bill C-55 has been brought in to replace it.

We in our party oppose Bill C-55 because it is still in our opinion an attack on human rights. It gives unprecedented powers to certain federal cabinet ministers, particularly the Minister of Transport. I think that is a dangerous way to go.

I was in the House of Commons in the 1980s when we had great pride in enshrining a charter of rights in our constitution. We went through a great debate about individual rights, the freedom of speech, the freedom of mobility, what should be in the charter and what should or should not be enshrined in the constitution.

After a long and sometimes acrimonious debate we decided to enshrine a charter of rights in the Constitution of Canada to protect the individual rights and liberties of every Canadian regardless of background or where we came from.

I suggest to members that the bill before the House today is an attack on those human rights. It gives far too much power to the Minister of Transport and certain other ministers of the crown.

We live in a parliamentary democracy. I think we need a great deal of parliamentary reform in terms of democratizing this institution and democratizing our electoral system in Canada. To give more power to a cabinet minister who can exercise those powers through an edict basically, through an order in council, through permission from fellow cabinet ministers around a cabinet table in this very building, I think goes too far.

I also believe that the present criminal code and the police powers we have are adequate. The present laws are adequate to deal with any terrorist threat, real or perceived.

Once we give this kind of power to a cabinet minister, regardless of who that individual may be, there is always the possibility of abuse of that power. I remember the War Measures Act in 1970. I remember the Trudeau government of that day. Pierre Trudeau was a person who was committed to civil liberties and civil rights. Despite the fact that he talked a lot about a new democracy and participatory democracy he invoked the War Measures Act to deal with the Front de Libération du Québec in 1970.

It was an overreaction. The Government of Canada under Pierre Trudeau took a sledgehammer to open a peanut. There were troops outside the House of Commons. It was my second year in the House. All kinds of innocent people were arrested under the War Measures Act. If I remember correctly there was a member of parliament across the way who was arrested under the act. He was the leader of the teachers' union in Quebec at the time. Other members of the House of Commons might have been in similar situations. I knew all kinds of people who were arrested under the War Measures Act in an overreaction by the federal government.

The leader of the opposition at the time, Robert Stanfield, supported the invocation of the act. When he left public life he said the biggest mistake he had made in his political career was to get up and support the invocation of the War Measures Act by then Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau and the Liberal Party. It was an overreaction.

I was one of the 16 members of parliament who stood in the House in opposition to the act. There were 23 of us in the NDP caucus and 16 of us stood in opposition to the invocation of the act. A feeling of hostility greeted us from some members of the House and many members of the public because of the fear being whipped up throughout the country at the time.

The government already has awesome powers. It and the military have tremendous powers under existing law. The criminal code gives police powers that are broad in scope. We have seen those powers exercised in the past. Additional powers do not need to be given to the Minister of Transport and other cabinet ministers to deal with the threat of terrorism.

There is nothing as fundamental as individual freedoms and civil liberties. That is why so many people are concerned about Bill C-55. That is why it should not be passed in the House of Commons before we recess on June 21. Sober thought should be given to the bill by all members of parliament over the summer months. I hope when we come back in the fall the Government of Canada will withdraw the bill and find it is not necessary in terms of security, peace, justice and freedom in our country.

Many of the freedoms we have were hard fought for and difficult to achieve. Taking them away by giving a cabinet minister this kind of power would be the wrong way to go. The powers the government wants to give itself are unnecessary. They would be an infringement on the rights of the Canadian people. We are a proud country in terms of trying to defend minority rights. I mentioned the War Measures Act as a sad reflection on our history where the Government of Canada overreacted.

As I watched the hon. member from Vancouver East walk into the House of Commons I thought of another time a Canadian government overreacted. Japanese Canadians were rounded up during the second world war and shipped to internment camps in the interior of British Columbia because they happened to be of Japanese ancestry. Canadians of Japanese ancestry were arrested and put into internment camps. That is part of the history of our country.

I am not suggesting this would happen again but it has happened in the past. Giving this additional power to a cabinet minister and the Prime Minister would invite overreaction in the future. That is why our party does not want to see Bill C-55 through the House of Commons. Bill C-42 which was in the House before and after Christmas was widely criticized as being draconian and dangerous for the freedom and liberty of Canadian citizens. I am sure that is why the government did not proceed with it. There was a public perception that the bill was an overreaction. Unfortunately, Bill C-55 offers little improvement.

In fact, this is the same bill. It may be slightly different, but this is essentially the same bill. This is why we must hold an extensive debate in the House and defeat this bill. This is crucial.

I hope my hon. colleagues in the Liberal Party will at least listen to one of their own members, a prominent civil rights lawyer from Montreal who expressed deep concern in the House that the bill would give undue power to cabinet ministers and diminish the civil liberties of Canadians.

Where is the liberalism in the Liberal Party? Why do its members not get up and defend the freedoms of ordinary Canadians? Is it not ironic that a Liberal Party is bringing in this kind of draconian legislation? I appeal to members of the Liberal Party to get up on their small-l liberal legs to speak out against this draconian piece of legislation.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis-Et-Chutes-De-La-Chaudière, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is my turn to take part in this debate on a bill that will be very important.

Why? Because it will amend a whole series of acts. We are not talking about amending some sections, but about giving a lot of power to the Minister of National Defence to establish controlled access military zones. For the Bloc Quebecois, this is far too much power.

In this regard, this bill is just as badly flawed as Bill C-42, which we opposed, as it gives the minister the same powers.

Simply to give the House an idea of how important this bill is in terms of changes, suffice to say that part 1 amends the Aeronautics Act. Part 2 amends the definitions of screening and screening point in the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority Act. Part 3 amends the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. Part 4 adds a new offence to the criminal code for communicating information and so on and so forth. Part 5 amends the Department of Health Act. Part 6 amends the Explosives Act. Part 7 amends the Export and Import Permits Act. Part 8 amends the Food and Drugs Act. Part 9 amends the Hazardous Products Act. Part 10 amends the Marine Transportation Security Act to give even more power to the minister. Part 11 amends the National Defence Act. We are told it is to give the Minister National Defence more powers, but they are giving him a great deal more power.

Let me continue. Part 12 amends the National Energy Board Act. Part 13 deals with the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Part 14 amends the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act. Part 15 amends the Pest Control Products Act. Part 16 amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act. Part 17 amends the Quarantine Act. Part 18 amends the Radiation Emitting Devices Act. Part 19 amends the Canada Shipping Act and the Canada Shipping Act, 2001.

This Canada Shipping Act has been changed a number of times, but never very substantially, at least not until now. I know what I am talking about, as I am particularly concerned with shipbuilding. The people involved in this field would like to see amendments made to this bill to bring about changes for the better, to foster development, rather than for the worse.

I am sure the hon. member for Chicoutimi--Le Fjord is paying close attention to this. I was his seatmate for quite a while. He claims to be concerned with development, but we often witness actions to the contrary by the government in the area of shipping or shipbuilding. The present minister is even thinking of closing down the Davie and Saint John shipyards. This is not pro-development; it is pro-closure. Instead of building up, it is destroying, and not just buildings, lives as well.

Felix Leclerc has said that when you pay someone to do nothing, it affects his morale. The governments seems very insensitive to this. There is talk of thinking about closures. The workers have lived with uncertainty for years, and want the government to hold off. During the election campaigns, people come along promising that they are “going to do something”, they are going to develop programs for our ridings. The people's reaction: “My goodness, after the election, there will be a new minister”. There was, but he was in that portfolio barely a year. Then he moved on.

Of course, I am referring to Mr. Tobin, who was from Newfoundland. He left; he realized that he could not keep his promises. He realized that his government's ministers wanted to do nothing in this regard. When amending shipping legislation, at the same time, programs should be introduced to help people, to develop the sector. Canada has the longest inland waterways in the world. There are longer rivers, but not waterways. Yet, we are still waiting.

I have been here for nine years and for nine years I have heard the government tell us “Just wait, this is coming”. The Minister of Industry was planning to meet some people in the Quebec City area tomorrow, but the meeting was cancelled. The workers have been told “Wait, announcements will be made”.

However, the government now wants to amend legislation to give more powers to ministers. My God, this is troubling. Too much discretion is being given to some ministers. In this bill, military zones would be left to the discretion of the Minister of National Defence.

I turned 55 last week. I am not mentioning it to have you wish me happy birthday--

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am not necessarily happy to rise today to participate in the debate on Bill C-55, however, it is important that I do so.

This bill comes after others that were passed in this House. I think that we must take them into account when we make a decision on Bill C-55, which will allow for the creation of controlled access military zones.

I want to remind the House that, over the last few months, since the events of September 11, we have passed, in spite of the Bloc Quebecois' opposition, Bill C-36, the Anti-terrorism Act, and Bill C-35, where section 5 allows the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to take measures, including building walls around any area where events are taking place, in accordance with procedures to be determined by the RCMP alone.

So we already have, over the last few months, passed two bills that are very disturbing from a civil liberties standpoint. Amnesty International, in a report published yesterday and discussed today in the media, says that, since the tragic events of September 11, freedoms and democratic rights in general have regressed, and this is true in Canada.

Clearly, in a number of countries these days, including our neighbours to the south, arbitrary arrests are taking place, detentions without warrant, or even, as was done with the prisoners brought out of Afghanistan, the creation of special courts that do not come under any civil authority.

This morning Amnesty International announced that democratic freedom had experienced setbacks in almost all of the western world. Canada is not, unfortunately, an exception. Bill C-55, along with Bills C-36 and C-35, which have unfortunately already been passed, is one more proof of this. Canada's reputation is exaggerated as far as democratic freedom is concerned. One of the signs of this is that, ever since Canada has become a member of the Organization of American States ten years or so ago, it has signed not one of the regional conventions on basic rights. I feel obliged to denounce this.

Moreover, more and more stakeholders, including Amnesty International, have emphasized this exaggerated reputation Canada has as far as democracy is concerned. For instance, the latest issue of the Quebec chapter of Amnesty International's publication Agir spoke out against the Canadian government for its attacks on democratic freedoms.

We now have before us a new bill, Bill C-55, which is in fact a reincarnation of Bill C-42, which the government was trying to ram through, like Bills C-36 and C-35, but which was withdrawn as a result of criticism by the opposition, the Bloc Quebecois in particular.

So now we have its replacement, Bill C-55. This is the same bill again, except for a few cosmetic changes. For instance, the new terminology: controlled access military zone, instead of what was used in Bill C-42, that is, military security zone. Whatever the terminology, we are talking about exactly the shame negative effect on rights and freedoms.

Bill C-55 cannot therefore be supported by the Bloc Quebecois, as indeed Bills C-35 and C-36 were not, because of their totally arbitrary nature. Bill C-55 merely repeats what was in Bill C-42.

One might argue that some of the criteria for establishing these controlled access zones have been tightened up. Nevertheless, it is still the minister of defence alone who has the power to establish such zones.

Let us not forget that it was the minister of defence who, just recently, neglected to inform the Prime Minister about Canadian troops taking prisoners in Afghanistan and handing them over to the Americans, information which was quite important in the context. Moreover, this minister had to resign just days ago; he was fired from cabinet for reasons related to conflict of interest.

One can wonder about the adequacy of giving one minister, namely the Minister of National Defence, the power to create controlled access military zones. It seems excessive to us and it opens the door to much arbitrariness and dangerous situations, especially since the bill does not even require the approval of the Quebec government or any provincial government as far as the creation of a controlled access military zone is concerned.

As we know, unfortunately, there have been a number of federal interventions in Quebec that were not requested by the Quebec people. I am also convinced that a controlled access military zone would have been established at the Quebec summit in April 2001. If the Quebec government had objected, the minister of defence would have ignored it, just as they denied the Quebec Prime Minister the right to address the heads of state visiting our national capital.

In Bill C-55, the only criterion governing the designation of these controlled access military zones is that they must be reasonably necessary. This is a criterion that is elastic to say the least, both in terms of the dimensions of the zones and their period of designation.The provisions included in Bill C-42 and Bill C-55 are basically the same. No improvements have been made. There is only the following, in clause 260.1(4), which reads:

(4) The dimensions of a controlled access military zone may not be greater than is reasonably necessary to ensure the safety or security of any person, thing or property for which the zone is designated.

As we can see, there is a grey area, an arbitrary wording that will allow the Minister of National Defence, the federal government to do what it wants with these zones. Again, Bill C-55 complements Bill C-35, which gives the RCMP the power to erect walls, as it did in Quebec City. What were meant to be exceptional measures will now become the norm during any important event, any event of international scope. Bill C-55 has the same flaws as Bill C-42 in terms of the applicable criteria, and this is what makes it just as unacceptable.

Another aspect of the bill is that in these controlled access military zones, the people could lose certain rights. They will not be able to sue for damages, losses or injuries. It is written in the bill. For example, subsection 260.1(12) says:

(12) The Canadian Forces may permit, control, restrict or prohibit access to a controlled access military zone.

No reference whatsoever is made to the rights of people within this zone who, for example, would want to hold a peaceful demonstration, which is consistent with our charter of rights and freedoms and all the international conventions. Once again, nothing could be more totally arbitrary.

Finally, while in Bill C-42, a number of reasons, such as international security, defence and national security reasons, were given for the creation of such zones, in Bill C-55, all these references have disappeared. This bill essentially expands the reasons for designating controlled access military zones.

When we look at the bills passed since September 11, we find that not only Canada's reputation concerning human rights before September 11 was overrated, but the varnish is starting to peel off. The balance between rights and security needs was broken. Now, we are living in a state where civil liberties and democratic freedoms are more vulnerable than a few months ago.

In this context, the Bloc Quebecois has no other choice but to oppose this bill.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am quite happy to take part in the debate on second reading of Bill C-55.

I am pleased to enter the debate on this omnibus bill, Bill C-55, and to specifically address the amendment before the House. It is important for us to remember that it arose from the ashes of this government's heavy-handed, ham-fisted handling of Canada's response to the horrifying events of September 11.

We are now dealing with Bill C-55, a bill that represents a second go around of the so-called public safety act that the government introduced last fall.

It is not surprising that within hours of the government introducing both Bill C-42 and Bill C-36 as part of its supposed comprehensive anti-terrorism plan, there was a very loud and growing outcry from Canadians. They understood the heavy-handedness of those legislative measures. It was ironic that on the one hand the government wanted to make Canada and its citizens feel safer and more secure but on the other hand it brought in measures that were in fact a very real threat to the human rights and civil liberties of Canadians.

In some ways we are talking here about a good news, bad news scenario. I am prepared to acknowledge, although it may sound a bit grudging, that at least the government was forced to beat a hasty retreat with respect to Bill C-42. Unfortunately it was not prepared to withdraw Bill C-36. Although it did capitulate to a great deal of pressure to introduce some amendments, the amendments were not nearly sufficient to address the underlying concerns. Therefore, the New Democratic Party, as people I am sure would have expected, could not support that legislation.

In the instance of Bill C-42, I am prepared to say that at least the government recognized that it had to withdraw it. Whether it was forced to withdraw it or not I suppose could be the subject of debate. In the strictest sense we could say that the government had the numbers to carry the day if it had wanted to persist but it did understand that politically it was simply unacceptable to ram through the so-called public safety act when it would have put in jeopardy some of the very important human rights and civil liberties of Canadians. It also put in jeopardy the protection of public safety, in the very broadest sense of the word. What public safety comes down to is whether people's human rights, civil liberties and their rights to be protected are fully intact.

It is obvious that there was a climate of very considerable fear, rage and certainly a sense of revenge in the aftermath of September 11. One of the things the New Democratic Party tried to do was to counsel and plead with the government that we were not alone in this. There was a great deal of support from citizens and citizens' organizations who were very vigilant about the importance of protecting human rights and civil liberties. They tried to encourage the government to not act in that climate of fear in a way that could only be described as overreaction. Unfortunately, the government was not prepared to take that counsel seriously.

The reason I say we are now perhaps looking at a good news, bad news scenario is that it is good news that the government felt compelled to withdraw the initial stage of legislation.

The bad news is that the government has still failed to take under serious advisement some of the most important warnings and pleadings that were made, not just to the Canadian government but to governments around the world as they grappled with the appropriate legislative responses to try to address the issues of public safety.

Instead of listening to the lesson, it is clear that the lesson was forgotten. That was the lesson that the UN secretary-general put out to all parliamentarians, all legislators, to say that in the war to defeat terrorism there cannot be a trade-off between human rights and human security or public safety. Perhaps an even more dramatic expression of that same important principle is found in the words that now are really seared in the public mind, the words of the lone member of the U.S. congress who had the courage to stand against the appropriation of funds to launch the military offensive in Afghanistan. She said “In the attempt to defeat terrorism, let us not become the evil that we deplore”.

The bad news is that the government has still failed to take that very important principle under advisement.

My colleague, the member for Windsor--St. Clair, who spoke just before I rose, was quite right in pointing out that at a time like this when there are threats to public safety and when there is a sense of fear in the public, the pressures are enormous to weaken, to erode, to lessen and in some cases to just plain throw overboard human rights and civil liberties.

We are very proud to stand in support of standing up in that kind of climate against the pressures to conform, to cave in, to simply cater to the fears and toss aside the important human rights and civil liberties of our own citizens and of other citizens. In fact we represent the political party that has the most distinguished record in the country of doing that.

There are many examples. The examples are legion, but let me refer to a couple, one being the case of the Japanese internment. This party stood alone and said we could not accept that simply on the basis of ethnicity and national origin citizens in our country literally should be imprisoned and robbed of all of their rights and freedoms in the name of public safety, completely abandoning the rule of law, completely abandoning the upholding of human rights and civil liberties.

The more recent example, and the one that would be best known by the generation of young people now growing up in our country, was the example where the New Democratic Party, again alone, with at the end a tiny number of three enlightened so-called Progressive Conservatives at a time when in fact there were progressive conservatives in parliament, stood together in opposition to the imposition of the War Measures Act in Quebec in those dark and difficult days in Quebec.

Practically every one of the members of the NDP caucus have spoken specifically on the act, but in a general way I want to again implore the government to recognize that this legislation remains too heavy-handed. This legislation continues to characterize the inadequacy and the inappropriateness of the government's response to the climate of fear.

The fears are real and remain real and the climate is one of looking for assurances, but greater freedom, greater liberty, greater safety and greater security are not assured through the suspension of important human rights and civil liberties. The real test of whether a government believes in democracy is whether it will stand up against as much pressure as there may be to uphold democratic rights when those rights are threatened.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Madam Speaker, thank you for recognizing me while I was still not completely properly attired. I suggest that it is a Liberal plot that we are having to spend our time debating the bill in such intemperate weather. I also want to point out that if we had dealt with climate warming a number of years ago it may not have been quite so uncomfortable in here today. I never miss an opportunity to deal with that very important issue.

The bill we are discussing today is clearly an attempt on the part of the government to recover from a very disastrous response from the general public across the country to Bill C-42.

Bill C-42 was introduced shortly before we went home for the Christmas holidays. It was interesting to see the types of responses we were receiving from our constituents. I certainly know that was my experience. I am guessing that members of the government are receiving the same responses from their constituents to Bill C-55. The responses to Bill C-42 were that Bill C-42 was not acceptable to the Canadian public.

I have to say that the government's attempt to recover from its faux pas with Bill C-42 has not been very successful.

I must say that Bill C-55 goes some distance in addressing some concerns we have had over a number of years under various pieces of legislation but, after reviewing the bill, I see that there are still a number of excesses, especially in terms of security.

We have a crisis as a result of September 11 and we get a knee-jerk response that has not been properly thought out. A number of sectors that would be affected by the bill have not been properly consulted but the government goes ahead and says that there is a security problem. It often brings in this almost dictatorial type of response. It is an authoritarian response that is often not a methodology that will be successful but that will seriously impede the civil and human rights of Canadian citizens if the bill becomes law and attempts are made to implement it.

In a number of ways the New Democratic Party opposes the legislation. Certainly near the top of that list is the unprecedented powers that have been accorded to some of the ministers in government.

This is one of the areas where the government has tried to cover over the inadequacies and excesses of Bill C-42. I am sure other members of the House in the course of this debate have expressed concern over the declaration of what used to be a military zone, which has now been replaced by more neutral wording but which, in many respects, has the same effect.

The offensive part of that is that it would allow the minister of defence, without any other review and solely on his or her assessment of the situation and decision making, to decide what area will be a war zone. All the laws of the country will then be suspended in that area.

The government tried to cover that up by saying that it would only invoke that if it needed to protect its equipment. Frankly, if we were to analyze that explanation from an objective viewpoint we would see that it was plainly absurd.

Similarly, the bill would give the Minister of Transport a number of extraordinary powers in regard to the travelling public. Even if one could argue some justification for that, it is not, in a number of ways, possible to support that type of power. However even if one could argue the point in some other areas, it begs some other type of review, whether that be judicial or by a special committee.

We also have a number of other precedents within our legal and constitutional framework for those types of situations where a review could be established under the legislation thereby preventing any excessive use or abuse of the power. We see little or none of that in Bill C-55.

The powers that would be given to those ministers would clearly infringe the rights of Canadians. The bill still remains quite heavy-handed. It is not just the members of the New Democratic Party who are saying this. As I believe all members of the House know, the privacy commissioner went public with a letter to the Minister of Transport. It was very unusual for him to take that kind of position in the public venue. However his letter expressed deep concerns about the legislation. I want to quote part of the letter where he talked about the privacy and civil rights of Canadians. The letter states:

In summary, my concern is that its [the bill's] provisions could fundamentally and unnecessarily alter the balance between individuals and the state that exists and should exist in a free society such as Canada.

I know he used the words “fundamentally alter” but I think the more important words were “unnecessarily alter”. We know from some of the experiences we had with Bill C-36 that it was true about that legislation. However the government is now repeating the same errors.

There are already a number of criminal and quasi-criminal provisions in the criminal code and in other legislation that could deal with the points being dealt with in this legislation. These statutes could deal with them more appropriately because historically we have worked out any problems, as opposed to this bill which would expand powers significantly and, as we argue and as the privacy commissioner has argued, unnecessarily.

The government simply does not need the powers contained in the legislation that it has argued it needs. The potential for abuse is glaringly obvious when one analyzes the whole bill.

If we were to go back into history and look at the abuses of power, especially when the War Measures Act was brought in, we argue from the perspective of our party and we believe from the perspective of fully protecting civil and human rights, that we should almost give ourselves a slap on the side of the head and tell ourselves that we must not forget our history. The rampant abuse of power throughout history should caution us to not repeat the same mistakes.

Our party is adamantly opposed to the legislation in its present form. It needs to be withdrawn and sent into a consultation process. The problems that do exist require attention and the potential abuses that are contained in the bill need to done away with.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to participate in the debate on Bill C-55.

We know this bill is still a threat for the citizens' rights and freedoms. This is why it must be amended so that the consent of the Government of Quebec and of other provincial governments would be required before a controlled access military zone is designated on their territory.

The provisions on the creation of controlled access military zones, the absence of legal recourse following the creation of a security perimeter and the provisions allowing airlines to provide personal information on passengers, all pose serious problems, as far as keeping the required balance between security and freedom is concerned.

Bill C-55 contains much the same provisions as Bill C-42 with regard to interim orders, which would give much power to a small group of ministers.

As well, Bill C-55 allows much wider access to information about airline passengers. The government is assuming the power to modify, as needed, the nature of information that can be transferred between various agencies.

Moreover, with the new provisions, the RCMP and CSIS would now have a direct access to this information held by airline companies. These provisions would open the door to the use of personal information that would go far beyond the requirements of the fight against terrorism.

I believe that the balance required between public safety and the protection of freedoms is not always being respected with the new government bill. The Bloc Quebecois will continue to be vigilant, to ensure that the federal government introduces legislation that is finally in keeping with the values of Quebecers.

I indicated earlier that several elements are affected by Bill C-55. I would like to go back to one of them, that is, the controlled access military zones.

One knows that, given the abuse that might result from the implementation of the first bill, we had to be vigilant, of course, about the interpretation of this one. A few changes were made. However, a number of irritants remain, including—and it is the main one—the ban on action for damages by reason of the designation of a controlled access military zone.

We could talk about subsection 260.1(1), which says:

Subject to subsection (2),--which we will see later—the Minister personally, on the recommendation of the Chief of the Defence Staff, may designate a controlled access military zone in Canada in relation to:

I repeat that the designation will be done by the minister personally.

It applies to, first:

(a) a defence establishment;

(b) property that is provided for the Canadian Forces or the Department and is situated outside a defence establishment;

(c) a vessel, aircraft or other property under the control of a visiting force that is legally in Canada by virtue of theVisiting Forces Act or otherwise.

The main difference between Bill C-42 and Bill C-55 with regard to controlled access military zones is, of course, this section.

However, subsection 260.1(2) says that:

The Minister may designate a controlled access military zone only if it is reasonably necessary for ensuring the safety or security of

(a) any person in, on or about anything referred to in paragraphs (1) (a) to (c); or

(b) anything referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) to (c).

A quick reading of these two provisions will show that, at any given moment, the minister, one single person, possibly on the recommendation of the chief of defence staff or on his own initiative, could decide for any given reason to increase the number of defence facilities on Canada's or Quebec's territory. We already have several of them but the minister could decide, on his own initiative, to increase their numbers. Every time someone visits those facilities, controlled access military zones could be designated, with all this implies for the rights and freedoms of people living in the surrounding areas.

Speaking about surrounding areas, we all know well that the minister is the one who will decide where it is reasonably necessary to designate a zone. Knowing the Liberal Party and this government, what could be considered reasonably necessary by the minister? Things that are considered reasonable one day by them are no longer reasonable for others the day after. Sudden changes of mood could occur and things would not go the way they were intended.

Under Bill C-55 as under Bill C-42, the defence minister is the one who designates security zones, now called controlled access military zones.

The provisions of Bill C-42 indicating that military security zones could only be designated for matters of international relations, defence and national security have been dropped from Bill C-55.

The definition of what can physically be included in the military zone is verybroad. The bill refers to vessels, aircrafts or any other property as well as areas of land or water.

This is what subsection 260.1(4) says:

The dimensions of a controlled access military zone may not be greater than is reasonably necessary to ensure the safety or security of any person, thing or property for which the zone is designated.

Again, the words reasonably necessary are used. I am always very concerned when I see the Liberal government using words like reasonably necessary.

This phrase is included in all government programs, especially when they are designed for Quebec, like sponsorship programs. Were all these sponsorship programs really needed so that the government could get involved in various areas, especially in Quebec? One may well wonder. This seems to crop up regularly. The public keeps wondering why the Liberal government acts this way, especially when security is involved, and why it keeps saying that what it is doing is reasonably necessary. This clause is virtually identical to the one in Bill C-42. We still have ministerial discretion as to the dimensions of military zones. The minister is just required to ensure that these zones are not bigger than what is reasonably necessary.

We should also mention the maximum period during which the designation can be valid. With the addition of a few clauses in Bill C-55, it remains almost unchanged. The designation is valid for a maximum of one year and can be renewed for another year.

Under Bill C-55, a designation may not be for a period longer than is reasonably necessary, but if, as a resultof the renewal, the designation were to be in effect for more than one year, it would have to be approved by the governor in council. But a period of two years during which people can be deprived of their rights is awfully long. It is much too long. Here again, the provisions in the bill are practically identical to those in Bill C-42.

Clause 260.1 (11) reads:

(11) The Minister shall publish in the Canada Gazette a notice of a designation,renewal, variance or cancellation within 23 days after the designation, renewal, variance or cancellation is made, unless the Minister isof the opinion that it is in advisable to do so for reasons of international relations or national defence or security.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is too bad, because if the member for Brandon—Souris had asked for more time, I am sure that members would have agreed. What he was saying was very interesting.

As we all know, some terrible events took place on September 11. A friend of ours, an ally, a democratic country, our neighbour to the south, was brutally attacked. Thousands of people, men, women and children, died. Innocent victims met death at the hands of barbarians, terrorists, savages who decided to attack people who had done nothing to them.

The world's reaction to these events took two forms. The first was external, to go after and destroy the very roots of terrorism. This resulted in the campaign in Afghanistan, where Canadian and other troops are now engaged. The decision was made to destroy and oust a regime which was taking in members of terrorist cells. This was accomplished.

This external approach included co-operation among various countries, including their secret services, in order to better track the various terrorist activities which might be going on worldwide. Various countries reacted internally as well.

The main challenge facing all democratic countries is that of striking an essential and vital balance between the protection of human rights and freedoms, on the one hand, and public safety, on the other.

This balance has not always been properly respected. Yesterday, as we know, Amnesty International released a report in which the well known international organization mentioned the sometimes disproportionate reactions of the various democratic countries following the events of September 11. When an organization such as Amnesty International sounds a warning bell, it is the duty of elected officials in the various countries, and that includes us, to take note.

The government's first reaction to this threat to security was Bill C-42. This bill met with tremendous criticism. As the member who spoke before me mentioned, it is very rare for Canadians and Quebecers to pay much attention to the proceedings of this House. It is unfortunate, but that is how it is. Since 1997, when I first became a member, rarely have I seen as many reactions from my constituents, as many letters, as many e-mails, as many telephone calls as I did following the introduction of Bill C-42.

Accordingly, the Bloc Quebecois echoed the public's unease and voiced its criticism in the House. The Bloc was exemplary in its constructive, tight and well-argued criticism of Bill C-42; as a result, recognizing the validity of many of the arguments put forward by my party, the government withdrew its bill. It then introduced a new version of its bill, which is the one before us today, Bill C-55.

While the Bloc Quebecois is proud of the fact that some elements were removed from Bill C-42, Bill C-55 remains a source of concern for us. We still believe that the balance between the rights and freedoms of people and public safety, which should be the basis for this debate, has not been achieved in Bill C-55.

We could give various examples, but I will limit myself because I have precious little time. I will only address two main issues. The first one is the discretion given to the Minister of National Defence regarding controlled access military zones. The bill gives him complete discretion in that regard. My colleague from Repentigny demonstrated this in a brilliant and eloquent fashion. Who can have confidence in any minister of this government, after what we have been seeing day after day and given the lack of judgment displayed repeatedly by this ministerial team?

Take for example the EI issue or the Minister of Human Resources Development and the billion dollar boondoggle. How can we have confidence in the Prime Minister, whose personal integrity is being questioned? How can we trust the Minister of Justice, who brags about having participated in fishing expeditions with acquaintances of his? How can we have confidence in the Minister of Immigration, who blatantly changes his tune, even suggesting a deliberate attempt to mislead not only the House but also Canadians?

I see the head of the minister of intergovernmental affairs shooting up, but this is the main issue. He claims to know law so well, but it must be pointed out that, in the bill, this is at the minister's discretion. However, lately, one minister after another has shown a total lack of judgment.

In a bill such as this one, which threatens rights and freedoms to such a great extent, the danger is that people who, day after day, month after month, have shown their blatant and incredible lack of judgment, will have this discretionary power.

The other problem with controlled access military zones is that the approval of the province concerned is not required. This is dangerous, all the more so as there are no checks and balances to the minister's power. If at least the province's approval were required, we could say that there are some checks and balances, but this is not the case. It is dangerous especially with regard to the “reasonably necessary” criterion regarding the size of these zones. This is a problem.

We are talking about military equipment. I come from Quebec City. Several unbelievable examples come to mind. There is the Citadel in the heart of Old Quebec City, the armoury on Grande-Allée, which is some 200 metres away from the National Assembly. Under the guise of protecting military equipment, a minister who has the necessary discretionary power could say that the National Assembly, which is central to democracy in Quebec and is one of the oldest parliaments in the world since it dates back to 1791--let us not forget that--could be included in a controlled access military zones. The size of such a zone would have been decided by a minister of this government.

It is unfortunate that I have so little time left because there is so much to criticize in this bill. We will press on and see to it that it is never passed as it stands today.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the member for Egmont here who can perhaps learn something with respect to what is or is not happening in his own government with respect to Bill C-55.

After September 11 the government demonstrated its inability to govern and put forward legislation that was necessary at the time. It had this knee-jerk reaction that brought forward a piece of legislation that was not well thought of and not well thought out. It was drafted over a short period of time by people who did not know what it was they were trying to achieve.

Bill C-42 was introduced in the House and went to committee. Everyone suggested that it was nothing more than simply a difficult way to put forward legislation to appease the situation of September 11. Everyone that came forward in committee spoke against it, yet the government was intent on bringing it forward, pushing it through and suggesting it was necessary in order for Canadians to cope with terrorism within our borders.

Better minds prevailed and, because the legislation was so terribly flawed it could not even be dealt with by amendment, Bill C-42 was pulled from the order paper. That was probably the only good thing that the government has probably done in the last nine years. It was a step in the right direction. The government admitted it had made a terrible mistake and had drafted some terrible legislation. In fact it listened to the opposition and the people who made presentations to the committee and pulled that terribly flawed piece of legislation.

Unfortunately, it did not totally learn from that mistake. The government then came forward with a replacement to Bill C-42, which is the bill we are debating today, Bill C-55. It brought it forward and made some changes to it. It made changes that make it worse than what it was when it was Bill C-42. It brought it forward and, believe it or not, suggested that it be referred to the transport committee. What a silly thought.

The government wanted to refer the bill to the transport committee when in fact the bill dealt with dozens of laws, the least of which would be transport. Yes, there was the innocuous little area of the Aeronautics Act but that was not really the here nor there of it. However, the government suggested that it be referred to the transport committee, again making a serious mistake.

Members on this side of the House who objected to the piece of legislation suggested honourably and seriously that it should go to another committee, a committee that encompassed more than just transport. In fact it did. It was referred to a newly struck legislative committee which was just passed today in the House. I received notice that the legislative committee had been struck. We have a member on it, as do other members of the opposition and the government. That is a pretty positive thing.

What is not positive is that the bill is still the wrong piece of legislation to deal with terrorism. Members should make no mistake about it. We have stood in the House and said time and time again that we absolutely do not condone terrorism, especially within the borders of our country. There has to be a consequence to any kind of terrorist action in this country. We believe we have that legislation right now with the Emergencies Act. If it were put into force it would provide everything that would be necessary to the government. However, the government decided that it would go beyond that.

Bill C-55 is a serious threat to the freedom of Canadians. Let us make no mistake about that. Canadians out there do not often pay a lot of attention to what is happening in this House. Canadians must pay attention to this piece of legislation because it impacts their civil liberties. There was a comment made the other day on a newscast I was watching that said if governments keep nibbling away at civil liberties, eventually they will become difficult to get back.

The government has no checks and balances. We have seen in the past, as we have seen recently, all the allegations that have been going on with respect to sponsorships, pork-barrelling and patronage. It seems the government is prepared to go to any lengths to take and grab those powers that it thinks is necessary for it to continue on that path.

This legislation is not the way to do it because this would seriously impact Canadians. The bill would grant cabinet a whole host of new powers, including the right to arbitrarily declare certain military zones off limit to Canadians, and to violate the rights of Canadians by supplying passenger information to the RCMP without any cause.

As was said earlier today in question period the police must be totally impartial in a free and democratic country. It cannot be given specific rights against the people it is policing. This legislation would allow it to do that.

Other pieces of legislation which granted similar powers were all withdrawn, some over time, such as the War Measures Act, while others were never made into law, and I refer to Bill C-42.

Bill C-55 would grant the government both the power to protect and the ability to abuse this power. Unfortunately, it is most likely the latter would prevail. The existing law, the Emergencies Act, ensures this does not happen by protecting the principles of a free and democratic parliament. This law would take parliament totally out of the picture. It would not allow parliament to be a part of any of the decisions that would be made based on this particular piece of legislation.

There is a clause in the legislation which would deal with interim orders. Eight parts of the bill would amend various statutes to provide a new power, permitting the responsible minister to make interim orders in situations where immediate action would be required. Two other parts which would deal with the Aeronautics Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act would extend the power of the minister to make such orders.

The statutes that would be amended to introduce the power, and respective ministers are those of the department of health, food and drugs, hazardous products, navigable waters, pest control, and quarantine. The ministers would be given power over every ambit of Canadian lives and Canadian law at the present time.

The extension of these powers unfortunately would have no backstop. They would not be able to come back to this parliament and have those interim orders removed. The ministers would have the ability to extend those orders if they feel it were necessary.

We talked about confidence. There was a motion yesterday in the House about how Canadians have lost confidence in the government. They lost confidence not only with respect to trade, but also in the government's ability to govern.

Can we have confidence in a defence minister, who unfortunately or fortunately for us as Canadians is no longer in that position, who would be able to have such extraordinary powers that no other Canadian, and parliament, would have any ability to take those powers away from him or from the government? Do we have confidence now in the Prime Minister when he leads by example? We see that day after day. In fact they, the Prime Minister, his ministers and his government, have no one who can take the ability of their incompetence away from them.

Bill C-55 will be going to a legislative committee. My hopes, wishes and desires are that every academic and non-governmental organization and individual being affected by this piece of legislation would appear before that committee and tell government why it is absolutely mandatory that this legislation be defeated and not go forward.

We have a piece of legislation now, the Emergencies Act, that will allow us to do what has to be done with respect to terrorism. We should not give government any other powers or any other ability to impact Canadian civil rights the way they would be impacted by this piece of legislation.

I will have the opportunity to speak to this again after speaking to the amendment. We will also have the bill coming back from committee with plenty of amendments because that is necessary.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I admit that speaking after the member for Matapédia—Matane and also the member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans is a pleasure, but also a challenge. Nevertheless, I shall try to introduce new elements into the context of our consideration of Bill C-55.

As my colleague from the Quebec City region pointed out, the Bloc Quebecois has reason to be somewhat proud of the Liberal's openness toward amendments made to the old bill, Bill C-42, to introduce Bill C-55. It is a new and improved version, thanks in part to the main arguments and concerns raised by the Bloc Quebecois.

The government did follow up on our arguments to provide a better definition of what was and still is called controlled access military zones. This is good. However—and I think this was already eloquently stated earlier, but it bears repeating—we are very worried that it is still the Minister of National Defence alone who will decide on the definition and description of the controlled access military zones.

Imagine for a moment, if the bill were passed as is, the trust that would be placed in the Minister of National Defence, or the good judgment that we would hope he had. Imagine for a moment that the Minister of National Defence was the former minister of defence, the one who just left, and that he had to make a difficult decision. This is the same one who forgot to notify his cabinet colleagues, the Prime Minister and just about everyone that Canadian soldiers had captured prisoners in Afghanistan. Under this bill, we would have had to trust him to designate a controlled access military zone. I believe that this is putting too much faith or giving too much authority to this minister of defence.

What is more, last weekend he demonstrated to us that this faith that we could have, or should have given him would have been completely unwarranted when we learned that he awarded contracts worth $36,000 from his discretionary budget to his ex-girlfriend for a study already underway in the Canadian army.

The minister probably would have consulted the Prime Minister, or the decision might have been made by the Prime Minister.

This is again a matter of judgment or confidence in the Prime Minister. We are once again faced with a problem of judgment or confidence in the Prime Minister, who was himself investigated in the matter of the Auberge Grand-Mère and the golf course, who was also investigated for contracts awarded to Liberal organizer friends in his riding of Saint-Maurice, with Placeteco, and who is again under investigation, directly or indirectly, because of contracts awarded without competitive tendering and against all the criteria established at CIDA. Now he should be trusted to make a decision on a controlled access military zone. I think that even with the Prime Minister, we could not feel safe.

Suppose or imagine that Alfonso Gagliano were the Minister of National Defence. Under Bill C-55, he would have had the power to create a controlled access military zone. Does he deserve our trust or have enough judgment to make such a decision? I am sure that the Prime Minister would answer yes to this question, given that he named him Canadian ambassador to Denmark instead of the second in command in the Paris embassy. Still, Mr. Gagliano is the one who awarded Groupaction, among others, tens of millions of dollars in contracts. We all know that Groupaction is also under criminal investigation for having obtained money from the government under three contracts that produced in fact three copies of a single report. If Alfonso Gagliano had been the Minister of National Defence at that time, one could have wondered.

Just think for a minute that under Bill C-55 as it stands, the Minister of National Defence could have been the former ex and now new government House leader who was also very briefly the minister of public works. Trust would have been put in the former new government House leader, who would have been told “You do have the authority to designate a controlled military access zone”.

However, let us not forget that this is the same minister who enjoyed the hospitality of the president of Groupe Everest in violation of the code of ethics.

How could such power be conferred upon the former and current House leader when he does not even have enough common sense to know that he was violating the code of ethics and the most elementary rules of a public works minister with a huge budget, into which he was shamelessly dipping to reward his friends?

He is also the one who awarded contracts to Coffin Communication. This is worse than what we saw with Groupaction, since Coffin Communication was paid for reports that do not exist. At least, Groupaction made photocopies of a report, which shows that it had a minimum of decency.

However, Coffin Communication, a company without any employees, believe or not, received government contracts, never produced any report, and the whole thing was approved by the government and by the minister of public works.

If he were the minister of defence, knowing the powers associated with that office, I think that he would not deserve our trust because he would not have enough judgment to make these decisions.

However, concerning Bill C-55 as proposed, let us suppose that the position of minister of defence is held by the current minister of immigration. He could designate a controlled access military zone one day, forget that he did by the next day, and then come back the day after that and say “Yes, it is true, I did make such designation”.

The minister of immigration is also the minister of amnesia. When we put questions to him, he does not remember anything. If he had spent only one night at Claude Boulay's, it is conceivable that he might have forgotten about it. But if a person spends six weeks somewhere, he should remember it. We may forget about a period of ten or fifteen minutes. But if we forget about a six week period, we should seek medical attention, and this is very relevant.

If the minister were the Minister of National Defence, could we put our trust in him or believe that he has enough judgment to make a decision? To ask the question is to answer it.

There are others in this government who can fulfill the duties of Minister of National Defence. Let us suppose that it is the solicitor general. Would the current solicitor general deserve our trust to hold a power as important as that of designating controlled access military zones?

I should point out that it is this same solicitor general who made representations to people in his own department to further the cause of his brother in his region.

Would the solicitor general deserve our trust? Does he have enough judgment to alleviate our main concern about Bill C-55, which has to do with the designation of a military zone? Again, to ask the question is to answer it.

Suppose the Prime Minister makes changes and says that none of these ministers will be involved. Upon hearing him announce that the Minister of Justice will be the Minister of National Defence, we would have to ask ourselves if he is worthy of the trust that is required to hold this important power.

He just made an admission very candidly, because he is lacking visibility. He said “This is no fun for me. My colleague, the minister of immigration, is always making headlines these days. My other friend, the House leader, is also making headlines these days, but not me”. So, he made an admission to journalists, who did not have to look for long. He said “Do not bother searching. I accepted fishing trips from Groupe Everest. I went on these fishing trips. I went to the Moisie River. I travelled to Sept-Îles, and it was pleasant”.

Would he deserve the trust that is required under this bill to hold such an important power? To ask the question is to answer it.

However, if the Prime Minister ignored all this and appointed the first woman defence minister, namely the current Minister of Human Resources Development, would she deserve our trust and have the judgment required to hold the important power of designating a military zone?

Let us recall that there were 17 investigations into this minister's department because of a scandal of almost $1 billion. Indeed, she was making up new terms in the Employment Insurance Act in order to find pockets of poverty in her riding. Such pockets of poverty did not exist in ridings with an unemployment rate of 14%, whereas the unemployment rate in her riding was only 8%. Yet there were pockets of poverty. Even the Tories, at that time, did not find it very amusing, I would remind the House.

However, what if the Prime Minister chose none of these ministers, but the heritage minister instead. That would be even worse. She has handed out flags to everybody. She has given $2 millions to her friend, Robert-Guy Scully, something under investigation by the RCMP.

I know that the my time is almost up. However, if the transport minister, who had to resign when he was defence minister because he had tried to shut down the Somalia inquiry, had had this power, would he have deserved our confidence?

I think we have every reason to wonder about the appropriateness of giving the minister this kind of power.

I could talk about the former solicitor general, who said certain things on a plane. I could talk about Michel Dupuy, the former heritage minister. I could talk about all the other ministers who have been caught up in conflicts.

I think I have shown pretty well why we are so reluctant to support the bill as it stands now.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to take part in the debate on Bill C-55, particularly since, in a way, its introduction represents a victory for the members of the Bloc Quebecois.

As people are aware, the Bloc MPs have a reputation for being present, both in Ottawa and in their ridings on weekends. Contrary to what some people have said, when parliament is not sitting, this does not necessarily mean that the MPs are on holiday. Of course a member can take advantage of a week when parliament is not sitting to take a holiday and rest up, but this is not always the case. Every time parliament recesses is not a vacation for us; the people who come to our riding offices are very much aware that this is a time when we visit the people in our ridings, meet with people, visit factories, attend ribbon cutting ceremonies and so on.

I take the time for this introduction in order to raise people's awareness of one aspect of the question. Hon. members will recall that Bill C-55 started off as Bill C-42. There were many misgivings expressed by the members of the Bloc Quebecois, and some more progressive members of the Liberal caucus, it must be acknowledged, concerns about the rights and freedoms impacted just by the introduction of Bill C-42, the ancestor of the present Bill C-55.

That is why we hear from people when we are out and about on the weekends, when we meet people at social or other activities, that “it was a good thing the Bloc was there to raise questions like these in the House of Commons, a good thing the Bloc was there to tell this arrogant government what to do, this government that thumbs its nose at just about everyone and everything”. This is obvious with the scandals that are piling up one on top of the other, like layers of sediment on the earth. There is no end to the scandals being discovered. The ship of state is springing leaks on all sides. People keep telling us “A good thing we had the Bloc Quebecois there to tell this government that what it is trying to do makes no sense”.

We managed to get the government to review its position. Indeed, it withdrew Bill C-42 to introduce a new one, Bill C-55. It must be realized that the Bloc Quebecois cannot support Bill C-55, because it still contains some disturbing elements.

The debate is not over. The House will establish a parliamentary committee. This will be a joint committee, if I remember correctly. It will then be made up of unelected senators and of members of the House of Commons. We hope that, in the next steps to come, before this bill is read the third time and passed, the government will come to its senses about some questionable elements in it.

The Prime Minister and the minister of intergovernmental affairs were very proud, on April 17, to celebrate the twentieth anniversary of the coming into force of the charter of rights and freedoms in Canada, but, of course, they forgot about the unilateral patriation of the Constitution on April 17, 1982, whose twentieth anniversary was also being celebrated.

This may seem ironic, but 12 days later, on April 29, 2002, the government came back with Bill C-55. As he has since he was elected to this House on November 27, 2000, my colleague from Matapédia—Matane pointed out appropriately and eloquently that the Bloc Quebecois has some problems, with the issue of controlled access military zones, for instance.

I must admit that the government accepted the Bloc's arguments and tightened the criteria for the creation of controlled access military zones. Again, this is another victory for the Bloc Quebecois. It is the Bloc that raised the Liberal government's awareness and that countered its indifference or arrogance.

However, it will always be the minister of defence alone who will have the authority to designate controlled access military zones. This should be cause for concern. But, as my colleague said, we will give some time to the new incumbent, the former chief economist of the Royal Bank, who inherited the Department of National Defence to everyone's surprise. We will give him the benefit of the doubt.

Let us examine what the former incumbent did; he gave a $36,000 contract to his former girlfriend. He was punished accordingly. The punishment was probably well deserved, because he acted unwisely. However, to judge by the personality of this former minister, we can clearly see that it is not safe to leave such a decision to the discretion of one person only, the minister of defence, because if this person should lack good judgment, like the former incumbent, this authority could be used improperly. We find that the bill goes much too far in this direction because only the minister is given this responsibility.

There is also the whole issue of respect for provincial jurisdictions. I will use an example that has already been given. A few metres away from Quebec's national assembly is the Armoury, and a few kilometres away, to the northwest of downtown Quebec City, the military base of Valcartier. It means that an ill-advised and ill-intentioned minister could designate that part of Quebec City, within a 15 kilometre radius around the Armoury, where the seat of democracy, the national assembly, is located, as part of a controlled access military zone. You can imagine the absurdity of all this. That is why Bloc Quebecois members consider that the approval of the Quebec government should be required for the creation of any controlled access military zone on its territory.

Time flies. I would have many more points to make. As the Bloc Quebecois critic for transport for eight years, I would like to comment briefly on the tax on regional air carriers, which will help Air Canada maintain its dominance in the market and its monopoly.

This tax will drive out of business the small regional air carriers, because people have a limited ability to pay. Air travellers in the regions are not just people with a hefty expense account who work for big paper mills or big mining companies. There are also ordinary citizens who sometimes have a medical condition and cannot afford to spend eight, ten or twelve hours travelling by bus, by car or by train. That is what I had to say, but, unfortunately, my time is up.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-55, which, as we know, replaces Bill C-42, introduced in great haste by the government following the events of September 11.

Members will recall that one of the main issues raised by the Bloc Quebecois at that time dealt with the famous controlled access military zones, which raised a serious moral problem for all those who gave careful thought to the implications of such a measure.

First, we will obviously oppose the bill, because the amendments brought by the government are what I would call, in essence, minor amendments.

Finally, the government has reintroduced a bill that could have very serious implications for the freedoms of our fellow citizens. However, it can be said that the government gave in to the arguments of the Bloc Quebecois by tightening the criteria for the creation of controlled access military zones.

If we accomplished anything, we accomplished that. Besides, Bill C-42 was withdrawn. However, and I insist on the word however, the minister remains the only person empowered to designate controlled access military zones.

What is the significance of this? It means that one man and one man only can designate controlled access zones. He is the one who decides to create them.

We know what is currently going on in this government. We realize that ministers may sometimes be more or less reliable. I hope that the new minister is more reliable than his predecessor. Nevertheless, to give a minister sole responsibility for designating controlled access military zones is to give him a very important power.

This issue also concerns all the provinces. For example, the authorization of the Quebec government is still not required to establish a controlled access military zone on its territory. And the same goes for the other provinces.

The federal government is giving itself a power without asking the authorization of the provinces to establish controlled access military zones. It can do so even without telling the provinces. Indeed, there is no requirement to obtain the approval of the provincial governments.

There is also the fact that the “reasonably necessary” criterion to determine the size of these zones has not really changed. It is still very much a discretionary thing. What it means is that, once again, the decision may be made by a single person. It can be made unilaterally, without any consultation whatsoever.

Another thing that could affect people's lives is the fact that people who suffer a prejudice because of the designation of a military zone, or the implementation of measures to enforce the designation, still cannot take legal action for loss, damage or injury.

The designation of a controlled access military zone means that absolute power is given over a specific zone and that people may be prejudiced following the establishment of such a zone.

This means that people could be prevented from going home. It means that they could be prevented from leaving these zones. It could even mean that, because of the measures taken, people could see their property damaged, yet have no recourse.

This is a very important provision in the bill before us, as it was in the previous legislation. Indeed, these people would not have any recourse against the government. They would not have the right to turn around and ask the government to compensate them. This is very important. This provision should be changed. The bill should be amended in this regard. People who could suffer a prejudice because of the establishment of controlled access military zones should at least have a chance to be compensated when such zones are designated.

We saw what can happen with these types of zones. The name was not the same at the Quebec summit, but the fact remains that some people were adversely affected. Some business owners could not serve their regular clientele and suffered losses because of that.

Of course, the government then offered to compensate these people. However, there is nothing about that in the current bill. That is something that should be changed because it is very important.

Bill C-42 also referred to such things as international relations, defence or national security as grounds for creating military security zones, but these are dropped from Bill C-55. One can therefore assume that all grounds are now acceptable. A controlled access military zone could be created because there is fear of an attack or of some other event. I think that this is very risky and very dangerous because of the discretionary power conferred upon the minister, upon one single person, under the bill before us.

This bill still contains provisions allowing various ministers, and in one case in particular public officials, to make interim orders. This is somewhat related to what I just said. The bill allows ministers or public officials to make interim orders, which would practically create an event.

That is also very dangerous. An amendment is required. The bill needs to be reviewed in light of what I have just said in order to make it less dangerous for members of the public.

Two minor changes were made, however. They deal with the tabling of orders in parliament within 15 days, and reducing from 90 days to 45 the period during which interim orders are in force without cabinet approval. I would call these minor changes because, basically, these controlled access military zones should not be created without first consulting cabinet and even parliament.

I also note that there is no provision for a prior check by the Clerk of the Privy Council for consistency with the charter and the enabling legislation. We are obviously referring to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is very important.

Bill C-55 would also allow two other stakeholders to obtain information about passengers directly from air carriers and operators of reservation systems. They are the commissioner of the RCMP and the director of CSIS. This also threatens the freedom of individual citizens.

This information may be provided for two reasons: first, if there are imminent threats against transportation security and, second, to identify individuals for whom a warrant has been issued. Recently, we saw in the newspapers that all the groups which defend individual rights and freedoms were completely opposed to the provisions of this bill regarding information which may be supplied to the RCMP or CSIS.

There is one somewhat positive note concerning the information collected by the RCMP and CSIS. This information could be destroyed within seven days of being obtained or received.

Last weekend, I was in the Magdalen Islands. We know that this bill amends a number of federal statutes. As people will recall, one result was the establishment of the infamous $24 airport tax. In a place such as the Magdalen Islands, where flying is just about the only means of transportation in winter, people who are already paying a fortune for a plane ticket—it now costs $1,200 to fly from the Magdalen Islands to Montreal—are being slapped with another $24 on a return airfare. People are telling us that this will have quite a negative impact on tourism in the Magdalen Islands.

Fundamentally, when we look at the situation of all of the airports, that is where the events of September 11 have led us. The federal government has come up with measures that I would describe as excessive. The bill, as it has been introduced, is an excessive measure, given the events and what has happened since.

I believe that we have just about all of the elements and laws necessary to protect ourselves. All that was needed was to enforce them and use them properly. This bill grants a minister powers that can only be described as excessive. It gives excessive powers to the cabinet, to the police and to airport staff. Airlines are being required to use excessive powers, to hand over personal information on their clients and to provide information about their passengers. All of this violates the charter of rights and freedoms.

We are supposed to be living in a democratic country. With this bill before us, I am not sure that we will continue to be living in a democratic country. This bill could lead to abuses.

When it comes to establishing controlled access military zones, this power is given to one person, who in recent days has demonstrated that he is not necessarily reliable. I am not referring to the new minister, but the former one had problems.

It is very dangerous to give this power to one single person. We run the risk of denying citizens their freedoms, in an unjustifiable manner.

I wanted to come back to what I was saying about the Magdalen Islands, but since I do not have the time, I would simply like to say that, fundamentally, the bill before us threatens the rights and freedoms of citizens and it is not needed.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe it is very important to speak to this bill, which deals with terrorism. This bill, which was formerly introduced as Bill C-42, was modified to take into account some harsh criticisms made by the House, by the Bloc Quebecois in particular. Bill C-55 is totally unacceptable as it now stands. That is why we would prefer that it be considered in committee and that significant amendments be made to it.

I will take a different approach to criticize this bill. I am the Bloc Quebecois foreign affairs critic. Some time ago, I had to debate a bill, Bill C-35. All the clauses in that bill had the unanimous support of all parties in the House, except one clause consisting of three elements.

What did the bill say? I will refer to the fact that in these military zones that we have heard so much about, we are thinking about security at Kananaskis. Here is what Bill C-35, that we passed, says:

10.1(1) The Royal Canadian Mounted Police has the primary responsibility to ensure the security for the proper functioning of any intergovernmental conference in which two or more states participate, that is attended by persons granted privileges and immunities under this Act and to which an order made or continued under this Act applies.

It says “for the proper functioning of any intergovernmental conference”.

In the following paragraphs, it says:

(2) For the purpose of carrying out its responsibility under subsection (1), the Royal Canadian Mounted Police may take appropriate measures, including controlling, limiting or prohibiting access to any area to the extent and in a manner that is reasonable in the circumstances.

(3) The powers referred to in subsection (2) are set out for greater certainty and shall not be read as affecting the powers that peace officers possess at common law or by virtue of any other federal or provincial Act or regulation.

I want to draw to the attention of the House that the military security zones in Bill C-42, which became controlled access military zones in Bill C-55, are being proposed, among other functions, to protect people or property that would be deployed here during international conferences or when public figures are present on our soil.

At the outset, I could ask the following question: which legislation will have precedence? How will the security measures that the RCMP and the armed forces will provide be negotiated, particularly since, in Bill C-55, clause 260.1(12) says:

(12) The Canadian Forces may permit, control, restrict or prohibit access to a controlled access military zone.

As is also the case for a perimeter determined by the RCMP.

The arguments that are being used are the same. One may ask: who indeed will be responsible? What is even more worrisome is that the spirit is the same. The spirit is to prohibit access. However, on this issue, at the foreign affairs committee, we heard very direct and blunt evidence from some witnesses. We were told that the government cannot prohibit such access without violating the existing rights under Quebec's charter of freedoms and rights and under Canada's charter of human rights. It cannot do so without attacking these rights.

Yet, nothing in these bills, be it Bill C-35 or Bill C-55, can lead us to believe that the citizens would be in a position to defend themselves, to negotiate and discuss things. Even the provinces are in no position to do so.

When we debated Bill C-35, which creates security zones or perimeters, we said “Why change the present dynamics?”. In this respect—let us take the Quebec summit of the Americas for example, where all was not perfect, but lessons were learned so as not to repeat the same mistakes—there were some positive aspects.

There were negotiations between Quebec, the RCMP and the Quebec City security forces. Finally they came to an agreement in a context of respect for the police force which normally enforces the law in Quebec City.

With Bill C-35, this obligation to take into account the local police force no longer stands. Bill C-35 gives full authority to the RCMP.

As far as the creation of controlled access military zones is concerned, the full authority is given to the defence minister. He is the one who can create those zones. Now they say that this authority is more limited than it was in Bill C-42, the previous bill.

However, it is still clear that this boundary can shift. It is always interesting to read legislation. I always enjoy reading it. Although it is sometimes a bit obscure, one can still see the intentions of the legislator.

Subsection 260.1(3) in Bill C-55 provides that:

A controlled access military zone may consist of an area of land or water, a portion of airspace, or a structure or part of one, surrounding a thing referred to in subsection (1),—

This has to do with defence establishments, and so forth.

—or including it, whether the zone designated is fixed or moves with that thing.

So the zone can shift.

The zone automatically includes all corresponding airspace above, and water and land below, the earth's surface.

Subsection 260.1(2) in the same bill provides that:

The Minister may designate a controlled access military zone only if it is reasonably necessary—

Bill C-35 also contained the word “reasonable”. It would be helpful if a court could be asked to determine the meaning of “reasonably” or “reasonably necessary”. But this cannot be done after the fact. And again, we know how long this can take.

This means that these words can be used at the total discretion of the Minister of Defence, in the case of Bill C-55, and of the RCMP, in the case of Bill C-35.

Clearly, a controlled access military zone can be designated. For instance, one could be designated in relation to:

—a vessel, aircraft or other property under the control of a visiting force that is legally in Canada by virtue of the Visiting Forces Act or otherwise.

Clearly, President Bush's plane in flight may be sufficient grounds for the designation of a military zone.

The public must realize that it makes no sense for the minister of defence to be able to make decisions on these zones alone, to have full discretion and be required to go to parliament only within the next 15 days, and that is if we are sitting. If parliament is not in session, he can take the 15 days but can make the decision and, anyway, we know that any debate will be a theoretical one, thanks to the party over there.

This means that the minister of defence has the full and complete power to create controlled access military zones wherever he pleases, without Quebec's consent—and I speak for Quebec—or that of the province concerned. He can use force to extract from that zone people who should not be there, people who do not have a right to be there even if that is where they live. They are not entitled to any compensation. This is most regrettable.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today on Bill C-55. As some of my colleagues have already mentioned, this bill only shows this government 's need to control everything, arguing that it is acting for the benefit of the population. Nowadays, I get very concerned when I hear that the government wants to be in full control.

With what we have all learned recently on this government, it is hard to believe that it is in fact acting for the well-being of all Canadians. Let us say that it is rather doing things for the benefit of a small part of the population. How can the government prove that it is acting for the benefit of the population when only one person will be able to judge?

As far as I am concerned, I will summarize all this by saying that this will be a one-way ticket if the responsibility to judge what is safe for the Canadian population only rests on one person. With such an anti-democratic bill, the government will only circumvent what the country has tried to build in the last century, that is a real democratic process. The Canadian population needs to be reassured, but this bill is not the best tool to do that.

Thousands of people are dying every year, either at work or as the result of the acts of one person, of a family member or of an acquaintance. These lost lives deserve our attention, but this has to be considered within a democratic parliamentary process as this bill should be.

The NDP is not entirely against this bill and it even supports some specific aspects of it, such as the fight against the financing of terrorist groups, the new criminal offences relating to bomb scares, the creation of international conventions to fight the proliferation of biological or explosive weapons, and the fight against smuggling of people by organized crime.

However, the bill goes much further. For the rest, we consider that this bill greatly exceeds the power that we believe a minister should have.

Remember what happened at the APEC summit. We did not even have a bill such as this one that the government is proposing and the RCMP used pepper spray. We saw the images on television. A person was sitting quietly and the RCMP officer arrived with pepper spray and said “you have to leave”. He got up to leave and got pepper sprayed. With the new bill, he would have no way of defending himself. It is unacceptable. It is unbelievable that in a democratic country like Canada, it has come to this.

Everywhere people say “You live in the nicest country in the world” and they want to take away our democracy like this. Our dear Prime Minister was asked questions on this incident—today people are doubting his government—and he gave the following response, “Personally, I put pepper on my steaks”. It is as though what took place in British Columbia was a joke; it is as though it was a joke that he was not taking seriously.

The G-8 will take place in Kananaskis. The Prime Minister has said “We will be protected, there are bears in the woods that will keep the demonstrators from coming”. There should be a bill that allows bears to go throughout Canada to protect the government. It is an embarrassment having a Prime Minister who makes that kind of statement.

We are putting our democracy on the line for a government that is no more serious than that. In recent weeks we have seen what has happened here. The government is making parliament lose its credibility with all of the scandals that are happening, yet there are honest parliamentarians. Today, according polls, Canadians gave parliamentarians 18%. This is unacceptable and unbelievable. And we are going to put our democracy on the line with this kind of bill, when Canadians have always had the right to protest under the charter of rights and freedoms, and under civil rights. Yet today, we are giving all of this up.

We have no choice but to oppose this bill, because it deprives us of fundamental rights.

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, it is not in Canada that these aircraft hit buildings. Canadians live in a democracy and they want to continue to do so. Our country is respected throughout the world because of this.

I will refrain from reporting certain things I was told last week when I was abroad, but I will say that people abroad respect Canadians, the way our laws are drafted and the freedom that we enjoy.

Under this bill, the RCMP will be able to know everything on people who fly. Why does it need to know that? Why does it need to have the list of all those who will fly today when the important thing is to ensure that those who do fly are not dangerous people?

Security measures have been taken. I think that it is not easy to breach security in Canada. I have travelled to cities like London, Bucharest and Belgrade, and I can attest that security was not as strict there as it is here in Canada. Our country is not at war. It is not plagued by the problems that affect other countries. Today, we could lose our democracy because of what is going on elsewhere.

This is why we must be careful. Our democracy is in the hands of people whom only 18% of Canadians trust. This is quite a problem. We must take a serious look at it.

With regard to civil rights, the Liberal member for Mount Royal—for whom I have a great deal of respect—said:

First, while the bill seeks to circumscribe the power initially conferred upon the Minister of National Defence in the predecessor Bill C-42 to designate any part of Canada a military security zone, the scope of both the exercise and application of this power remain problematic.

The Liberal member for Mount Royal himself admits it. Hopefully his colleagues on the other side of the House will also. At least one Liberal had the courage to rise in the House, oppose the Liberals and say that what they are doing is wrong. I congratulate the hon. member for Mount Royal. He went on to say:

Admittedly, the bill improves upon its predecessor Bill C-42 in that the application of the power is limited to the protection of Canadian and allied military equipment and persons, and the exercise of power is limited to that which is reasonably necessary for this purpose, rather than, as in Bill C-42, what the minister “is in his opinion” believed necessary for reasons of international relations, national defence or security.

However, from the moment the Minister of National Defence decides to send out military personnel during a demonstration, the whole area automatically becomes a military zone. This is what happened in Quebec City when people demonstrated during the summit. The forces used guns with rubber bullets, which hit innocent people who were exercising their rights.

It happened, and there was no legislation like Bill C-55 at the time. In Canada, the problem is that the government has sold the country to globalization. This is what happened. They are now bowing down to other countries and trying to protect them when they come here and try to get hold of our assets. They want to protect them with bills such as this. Canadians will not even be able to defend themselves and to face these groups, which want to destroy our country and Canadian democracy.

Let us hope that this government will change its mind, that the bill will not be passed the way it intends it to be and that positive amendments will be introduced to Bill C-55, to ensure the preservation of the civil rights of Canadians.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this bill before us, Bill C-55, for those who are interested in jogging their memories, is Bill C-42, which was withdrawn by the government following pressure from the Bloc Quebecois. It became apparent that the defence minister was assuming excessive powers. Indeed, he could have decided that a controlled access military zone would cover the entire territory of a province. He could declare this zone without even consulting the concerned province in order to obtain its approval.

For these reasons, and for many others, the government decided to withdraw the bill. However, today it becomes apparent that with this government, the bureaucracy has a lot of sway.

In fact, the people who want more control managed to put the bill back on the agenda, thanks to a defence minister who, we have seen, did not necessarily have all of the abilities required to do the job. As a result, a bill has been introduced, which, when it comes down to it, has had a few changes.

The government did listen to the Bloc Quebecois' arguments by tightening the eligibility criteria for creating controlled access military zones. However—and this is a big however—it is still the minister alone who has the authority to designate controlled access military zones. As such, in the present case, it was the same minister who neglected to inform his government of the Afghan prisoners of war.

It seems as though errors in judgment run rampant in this government. Canada is involved in an international engagement in Afghanistan, and we learned through photos in The Globe and Mail that Afghan prisoners were captured by the Canadian military. The Prime Minister himself was not even informed when it happened.

This serves to illustrate the type of mistake that can be made and that could hurt many Quebecers and Canadians. Today, we have a new minister of defence who has no special expertise in the field and who may have to make swift decisions.

Imagine if this bill were passed as is. This would mean that, next fall, the new Minister of National Defence, who will just have had enough time to get up to speed on the various issues, might have to make a decision of this type without necessarily having any guidelines in the legislation that would prevent mistakes from being made.

We are not talking about mistakes that would have minor consequences. We are talking about the impact of designating controlled access military zones. If mistakes were made by the military, the citizens who are the victims of these mistakes would not have the right to take legal action. It is clearly stated that they could not seek compensation from the government.

One may indeed wonder why, after withdrawing Bill C-42, this government, which really had before it all the arguments to justify withdrawing the bill, came back with another bill that is not much clearer.

Why is it that, once again, somewhere in the upper echelons of the federal public service, it was decided to introduce monitoring standards, which give more and more power to the bureaucracy?

They must have thought that, if they were lucky enough to have a minister that was not really thorough in his examination, he would become their mouthpiece and they would have this huge power.

This issue was raised by the Bloc Quebecois. I hope the government will change its position and correct the situation so that a single minister does not have the power to designate controlled access military zones.

There is another aspect, namely that the approval of the government of Quebec or of a province is not required in establishing controlled access military zones.

Would it not be a good safety mechanism to see to it that, whenever the minister, under the influence of his senior officials and high-ranking officers, wants to designate a controlled access military zone, he consult the province concerned to ensure that it agrees?

If it is justified, if the decision is warranted, they are all capable of taking the right position in the end. However, if we do not give ourselves such a safety mechanism, then this power becomes much too broad, which is unacceptable to the Bloc Quebecois because the government of Quebec has no say. This seems important to us.

Let us think about everything that is in the vicinity of the Citadel in Quebec City. The National Assembly is very close to military installations. When the military decides on the zone—even if they keep telling us it is about protecting everything that is military property in particular—it is obvious that in very restricted buffer zones, such as that between the armories and the Quebec National Assembly, a totally unacceptable situation could be created. Sparks could fly, highly unreasonable provocation could ensue, and that is why this bill is not acceptable as it is.

They talk about the “reasonably necessary” criterion for the creation of these military security zones. This has not really changed since Bill C-42. It is still highly discretionary. This government is very big on this discretionary aspect, as we have seen in a number of instances in recent months. We can see how dangerous this can be. On occasion, it gives them an opportunity to encourage their cronies, but it could also result in decisions that would penalize the public in an unacceptable manner. I think that this aspect needs tightening up.

There was one other aspect I spoke of, the fact that people who have been wronged cannot take legal action for loss, damage or injury. There has been reference just now to controlled access zones in urban areas. It could easily happen that an officer or soldier could act in an unacceptable manner. The way the bill is worded, it comes down to this, “Tough luck, fella. You are in a country where military personnel has this type of power and can exercise it, even mistakenly”. There is no obligation for them to defend their actions. The result of this is encouragement of a mind set that could be expressed as follows, “It is a free for all, we can do as we like. After all, we cannot get into trouble for it”.

In this connection, I feel that the bill still needs some fine tuning. It ought to be sent back to the drawing board. This time, they ought to make sure that it is really the result of work by parliamentarians rather than senior public servants.

Bill C-42 also refers to such things as international relations, defence or national security as grounds for creating military security zones. These are dropped from Bill C-55. There is no longer such a specific list of criteria and grounds for creating these zones. The minister is given greater discretion and the problem which existed in Bill C-42 becomes even worse. This is something else that must be corrected.

I think that it is also a good idea for all citizens to give some careful thought to the exchange of letters which took place between the ministers concerned and the privacy commissioner. People realized that there were many shortcomings in this bill and that the privacy commissioner was seriously concerned that the government was creating the equivalent of a police state. There are some important areas that need correcting in this regard.

As for interim orders, here again, too many things are left unclear. With respect to information, many of the provisions mean that information can be provided to the RCMP and to CSIS. The procedure is not really clear and specific.

For all these reasons, it seems to us that the bill, as drafted, even though it bears a different number, is just another bad version of the idea originally contained in Bill C-42.

We must indeed wage war on terrorism and ensure that it may be defeated, but we must not do so by eliminating rights and creating a state which will ultimately serve terrorists' ends because it creates a society which is less free and balanced.

In this sense, I think that the arguments against presented by the Bloc Quebecois, which led to the withdrawal of Bill C-42, deserve to be heard here again so that the government will overhaul Bill C-55.

It is for this reason that I will be voting against the bill and encouraging members of the House to do likewise, so that many amendments can be made. Should the bill not be withdrawn, at the very least extensive amendments should be introduced in committee in order to make it acceptable.

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the previous speakers for their remarks, which I think were very good and right on the money.

This whole thing seems ironic to me. We are talking about a bill that is a response to the assault of September 11, and it turns out that like so many bills the Liberals have now it is an assault on parliament. It tries to restrict parliament's control and role in so many things. Just a few minutes ago we talked about Bill C-56 and the same concerns were raised in that debate. The same concerns were raised with the bill prior to that one. The problem is that the government is trying to restrict parliament from doing its duty and is trying to remove the role of parliament from many aspects of government legislation.

It is ironic that Bill C-55 is here only because parliament complained so much about Bill C-42 that the government withdrew it and replaced it with Bill C-55. I believe that is proof positive that parliament does play an important role in reflecting the interests and concerns of Canadians. However, this bill again restricts the role of parliament in so many ways and it goes along with so many actions by the government to adopt and establish agencies that are out of the reach of parliamentarians and committees. It has adopted foundations that distribute money and has privatized organizations like Nav Canada so that we can no longer have access to information for reports on safety and on the aspects of aviation that are so important to Canadians. This is a constant thing. Every single bill that comes forward seems to have an element in it that takes away our role in parliament, even though the very existence of this bill is proof positive that parliament does play an important role.

The bill takes tremendous powers from parliament and gives them to a minister. It is hard to believe that the government has even proposed such a bill. The interim orders that a minister can establish can remain secret for 23 days. They can go 45 days without cabinet approval. A minister can create a military security zone and not even seek cabinet approval for 45 days. What can possibly be the excuse for that? Why would it take 45 days to get the cabinet together if there is an emergency that justifies such a measure? Why is that not a few hours? Someone has proposed 72 hours. Why is that not acceptable? Why do we have to wait 45 days to get cabinet approval, much less keep it secret for 23 days? This is just absolutely amazing and there is no need for it. It must be an attempt by the Liberals, or the officials working for the Liberals, or someone, to establish power, maintain it and take it away from our parliament.

If we compare this to the Emergency Measures Act, which is designed to do much the same thing, only for different reasons perhaps, it really brings out the differences, the anomalies and the unacceptable conditions in Bill C-55. The emergency measures must go to parliament within 7 days, not 45 days. They must come back to parliament and we must vote on them here in parliament. Under the actions in Bill C-55 we would never vote on that. Why? Why would the Emergency Measures Act require a vote in parliament and Bill C-55 not require a vote in parliament?

Parliament could actually turn down an emergency measures recommendation or order by a minister. Under Bill C-55 parliament cannot even touch a recommendation. Under the Emergency Measures Act every regulation must come back to parliament and must be reported within two sitting days. Under Bill C-55 they never have to come back to parliament. Bill C-55 would come into effect immediately. There is not even a declaration of the implementation required under Bill C-55. There does not even have to be a petition to bring it in. Bill C-55 must be reported only 15 days after the House returns to sit again. If it does not sit, this is not reported at all. There is no requirement. There is no debate, no accountability, no nothing. It cloaks every aspect of Bill C-55 in secrecy. Parliament is left literally completely out of the loop.

This is a public safety bill but we should almost have a parliamentary safety bill to protect parliament. We should bring in a bill to protect parliament and our role to make sure that we still have a role in issues such as these, issues such as security and safety, a role that the bill tries to take away from us.

As the privacy commissioner said, as reported by the previous speaker, he takes total exception to this and says that the Liberals are trying to create a totalitarian society. Their response is to attack the privacy commissioner. This is a new strategy of the Liberals. They recently had an array of members of parliament attack the auditor general when she came out with a report they did not like. Now they have attacked the privacy commissioner. The Liberals establish these positions and support them, but if these people do not agree with them, they attack them. Then there is the ethics counsellor, who just does exactly whatever the Prime Minister wants him to do.

It is a serious issue. Many Canadians are concerned about the direction the government is going in. They are concerned about the intrusion of the United States on our sovereignty with this whole security aspect and the demands of the Americans to have their customs throughout Canada at our ports and in our airports. They want to take over our military by creating a perimeter security philosophy. What they really want to do is to control it; they do not want to share it. They want to control the customs officers in Canada. Again it seems that the Liberals are falling for this and going along with it. Although the United States is a very important friend to Canada, we must maintain our distance and our sovereignty. I hope that we do not move any closer and comply with some of the requests that the Americans continually are coming up with.

Our industries are now finding that the Americans are changing the rules every day. When truckers arrive at the border with a load of goods or even seeds or agricultural products, they find that the rules have changed and that they cannot proceed in the same way they did last week or the week before. The Americans are trying to control trade, security, the police and the military. This is a very dangerous direction to take and Bill C-55 plays into those hands.

Under the bill, the powers given to a minister require that cabinet be notified only after 45 days. I come back to that again because I think it is so unacceptable that cabinet does not have to approve some of these actions that a minister can take. It puts tremendous power in the minister's hands. That should be changed, if nothing else.

We support the amendment today because of these actions, because they put so much power in the hands of a minister when it is not necessary. I have no idea why the Liberals have come up with these conditions in the bill for transfer of the power to ministers. It is not necessary. They have lost total respect for parliament. They want to keep parliament out of the loop. They want to have just a very small number of ministers over there, not even the entire cabinet, making all the decisions and having all the power, and they want to have all the Liberal members stand up like trained seals and say yes, that they support it and they will do it. It is amazing that they continue to do this.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

It is one thing to disagree, and the member from Mississauga says they disagree with him. That is all well and good, but instead of disagreeing, Liberal members of parliament are attacking the messenger. They are attacking the privacy commissioner himself and surely that is not acceptable.

We know that the privacy commissioner has raised these concerns with the solicitor general. He has raised these concerns with the Minister of Transport. As my colleague from Churchill has pointed out, the Minister of Transport has been totally silent on this important legislation. Where is his leadership on this assault on privacy?

Here is what the privacy commissioner had to say about the response of the solicitor general to his concerns on the bill. He said that these are “highly misleading statements, half-truths and assumptions”. Those are very strong words from the privacy commissioner.

We in the New Democratic Party want to voice our strongest possible opposition to the legislation. When the government brought forward Bill C-42 we urged it to go back to the drawing board, to reject this attack on the most basic rights of Canadians.

It was done without any consultation with the provincial governments and the Government of Quebec and without any consultation with Canadians.

Instead of going back to the drawing board and coming back with a finely crafted piece of legislation, what the government has done is come back with a sledgehammer that is an assault on human rights and the privacy rights of Canadians. We as New Democrats will do everything in our power to stop this abuse of power by the Liberal government.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a real privilege for me to talk about this very important and truly antidemocratic bill. I share the views expressed by my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois on the matter. I would like to say clearly, as my colleague from Churchill, the NDP's transportation critic has said already, that the members of the New Democratic Party will vote against this bill. We will do all in our power to try to stop it and to ensure that it is never adopted in Canada.

In the days since September 11 we have witnessed a number of very serious assaults on the most fundamental civil liberties and human rights of Canadians. All of us of course support a fight against terrorism which is targeted and respectful of basic human rights. Indeed, there are some elements in this legislation, as my colleague from Churchill pointed out, that we support.

For example, we support the provisions with respect to money laundering, the new criminal offences for bomb threats, the implementation of international conventions to fight the proliferation of biological weapons, explosives and people smuggling by organized crime.

We do not oppose those. What we had hoped is that the government would have listened to Canadians from coast to coast to coast who voiced their outrage and anger about the provisions of Bill C-42. Instead what we see is legislation now tabled, Bill C-55, which while it purports to improve some elements of Bill C-42, is some very draconian and dangerous provisions that were not encompassed in the previous legislation on Bill C-42.

We have seen too often in Canada and in other countries the fight against terrorism being used as an excuse to suppress fundamental human rights.

We have seen this already in the case of Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism bill. Only one political party voted against this bill at the second reading stage, the New Democratic Party. I was really disappointed to see that my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois had not heard the strong voices of all Quebecers who exposed the possible abuse Bill C-36 could lead to. They even supported this bill at the second reading stage. This was far from acceptable.

As a number of international human rights organizations have pointed out, it is precisely at times such as this that civil liberties and human rights are most vulnerable. As the UN high commissioner for human rights, Mary Robinson, stated:

Excessive measures have been taken in several parts of the world that suppress or restrict individual rights including privacy, freedom of thought, presumption of innocence, fair trail, the right to seek asylum, political participation, freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.

My colleagues already have pointed out some of the concerns about this legislation, such as the sweeping and unaccountable discretion that is given to cabinet ministers, who only have to report back to parliament after a number of days, and the fact that there is no guarantee whatsoever that there will be any accountability to parliament. All they have to do is table their reports.

We know as well that the concerns with respect to the so-called controlled access military zones are very serious concerns. Canadians spoke out against this in the context of Bill C-42. While there have been some modifications, overall there is still a very grave potential for abuse in this area as well.

In the context of Kananaskis, my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois has pointed out that these provisions could indeed be used there, despite the denials of the minister. Many of us are very concerned about the growing atmosphere of intimidation of those who would peacefully and non-violently dissent at the upcoming G-8 summit in Kananaskis.

In fact just last week a senior brigadier general from the Canadian military threatened to use lethal force, lethal weapons at Kananaskis. This is shameful. He said “We are very serious...we have lethal weapons and we will use force if we think there is a serious threat”. He warned protesters and others that they would be risking their lives by protesting at the G-8 summit.

We do not want to give these kinds of sweeping and unaccountable powers to the government such as those proposed in Bill C-55.

One of the most dangerous provisions of this legislation is a new section that was not included in Bill C-42 at all. That is the possibility of sweeping access by the RCMP and CSIS to passenger lists for airlines. We have to ask ourselves why this is needed. Is it strictly needed to target potential terrorists? In fact that is not the case. The legislation includes some 150 offences under the criminal code for which this dramatic expansion of privacy invasive police powers is possible.

I want to pay tribute to the privacy commissioner of Canada, George Radwanski, who has sounded the alarm bell in the strongest and most eloquent terms against these abusive and dangerous provisions of Bill C-55. He said in a direct warning to parliament that:

It appears to be, quite simply, a power grab by the police. More precisely, since the police in a free and democratic country like Canada cannot seize power for themselves, a provision like this could only go forward into law as an award of unnecessary and unjustified new powers to the police by naive or indifferent political authorities.

What has been the response by some Liberal members of parliament to this cry of anger and concern by the privacy commissioner who has the mandate to protect the privacy of Canadians? Has it been to have another look at the legislation, to go back and say that maybe he has raised some serious concerns here before parliament? No, shamefully it has been to attack the privacy commissioner, in some cases in very personal terms.

We have heard for example the Liberal MP from Aldershot who said that he was condemning parliament and that he had gone way too far. George Radwanski, the privacy commissioner, is not condemning parliament. He is condemning a Liberal government that is prepared to abuse its powers to trample on the most basic privacy rights of Canadians. In fact, far from condemning parliament, he is sounding an alarm to parliament, one which it appears that Liberal members of parliament are quite prepared to ignore.

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we know that Bill C-55 is the follow-up to Bill C-42. It was as a result of comments, pressure, and even questions that we got the federal Liberal government to see how far-reaching Bill C-42 was and the risks of passing such a bill.

The government backed up and introduced Bill C-55. Obviously, in response to the Bloc Quebecois' representations, on a number of points in particular, the government at least reduced the magnitude of the problems. But it has not eliminated their impact entirely.

In my view, all the interim orders represent a very serious problem. For the benefit of taxpayers and those listening, this means that, under this bill, a number of ministers have authority to make interim orders. What are interim orders?

Under this bill—I will give an example—if a minister feels that a situation is a threat to national security or the health of individuals, he can immediately implement an order in council. The problem with this resides in the fact that orders come under the Statutory Instruments Act. Orders must meet the criteria in the Statutory Instruments Act, except that this bill is exempt from the application of sections 3, 5 and 11 of the Statutory Instruments Act.

What does this mean? I will tell those listening about these three important sections of the act. When a bill is considered with respect to a regulation, or an order in council—it is the same thing, just a different term—one applies the same legislation, the Statutory Regulations Act. However, this bill says that section 3 does not apply.

Among other things, section 3 tells us that “where a regulation-making authority proposes to make a regulation, it shall cause to be forwarded to the Clerk of the Privy Council three copies of the proposed regulation in both official languages”.

And then, what happens at the privy council? First, the proposed regulation must be examined to ensure it is authorized by the statute pursuant to which it is to be made. Second, it must be examined to ensure that it does not constitute an unusual or unexpected use of the authority pursuant to which it is to be made. Third, it must be examined to ensure that it does not trespass unduly on existing rights and freedoms and is not, in any case, inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights.

Members will see that there is no obligation to determine, among other things, whether the interim order violates the charter. It is indeed a form of abuse, because a minister will have the power to make an interim order without having to conform to this obligation of ensuring that it does not go beyond the charter.

A minister could, overnight and for a certain period, make an interim order to designate a controlled access military zone because, as I was saying earlier, there are objective concerns regarding a security or health problem for people in that zone. That allows the minister to designate such a zone for a certain period.

All this is totally undemocratic. Why? We have a good example with the minister of defence. In Bill C-55, he himself made sure that he had the power to make these orders and to designate these security zones.

We saw how a single person, the Minister of National Defence, admitted his errors in committee. A person can make a mistake. It is not because a person is the Minister of National Defence or the Minister of Justice that he cannot make mistakes. That person is a human being who can make mistakes. We demonstrated on a number of occasions that mistakes were made. So, the bill is dangerous and undemocratic for this reason.

Why does the government want to create a security zone? Let me give an example. An instance could be the G-8 summit, in areas where there may be problems. It could be the summit of the Americas. When we considered Bill C-42, we saw that it was very important to remove this provision because of its wording. Under Bill C-42, a security zone could even cover an entire province. This is no longer the case. The zone is now smaller and it is simply established to protect defence equipment.

However, the interpretation of this provision may be too broad. There is still a risk, even though a zone can only be designated to protect military equipment. The minister may create this zone or ask his staff to do so without, for example, asking Quebec what it thinks about it. Where is the urgency, and where is the consultation? The federal government can go on the territory of Quebec, or of any other province and, without asking the province what it thinks about the idea, include the corresponding airspace above, and water and land below the earth's surface. The Minister of National Defence alone may decide to create this controlled access military zone without the approval of Quebec, the provinces or the territories.

Once again, this bill undermines democracy and relations between this government, Quebec and the provinces. How can the government dare give itself such powers without consulting Quebec to find out if such an important zone can be designated?

Just imagine if this zone were located in an axis or territory so important that it would be governed by the National Defence Act. This bill on public safety will violate the rights of all those who live inside this controlled access zone.

When we speak of controlled access military zones, here is the problem: the zone has no limits. We are told “The zone is limited to ensure the protection of military equipment and facilities”. Take the example of a visit by President Bush to Quebec. He is protected by the army or by people with the necessary military equipment. What happens? This bill allows the minister to establish this zone and, once again, there are no limits. They refer to a reasonable time in order to protect military equipment. But let us think about the possibility of some kind of threat when the president is in a place like Quebec. What does “immediate” and “to protect” mean? Does it involve all the borders, or all the city of Montreal, if he should come to Montreal? Is it the entire St. Lawrence River, because the president is out on it in a boat? We have no demonstration of the limits as far as this bill is concerned.

Again, what is regrettable is that they backtracked on Bill C-42 because of our interventions, but this bill contains no substantial changes. Before setting out a provision for orders in council to set up these zones, there must be consultations with Quebec and with parliament so that it is not one minister alone who has the power to decide, or several ministers, the minister of health or some other. This bill amends a number of laws.

I see my time is up, unfortunately. This bill creates an emergency situation and must be opposed.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is the second time that I rise to speak to Bill C-55. The first time was at the second reading stage. We are still at the second reading stage, but an amendment has since been moved by an Alliance member, and an amendment to the amendment, by a Bloc Quebecois member.

For those just joining us, I will read the amendment again, as modified by our amendment to the amendment:

That this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-55, An Act to amend certain Acts of Canada, and to enact measures for implementing the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, in order to enhance public safety, since the Bill reflects several principles that violate human rights and freedoms, which have been denounced by the Privacy Commissioner and are unrelated to transport and government operations, rendering it impractical for the Standing Committee on Transport and Government Operations to properly consider it

I sincerely thank my colleague from Rosemont--Petite-Patrie, who brought this amendment to the amendment forward. The few words we have added reflect the concerns of all Canadians and Quebecers and of many parliamentarians regarding Bill C-55. As for the privacy commissioner, he was very critical. I will read something I had prepared for my previous speech.

Some were pretty harsh in criticizing Bill C-55, including the privacy commissioner. He stated clearly that the government drew its inspiration from practices commonly used by totalitarian states. The commissioner did not even give this new anti-terrorism legislation a passing grade.

Members will certainly agree that such an analysis is not very good for a government, a Liberal government of course, but also and more importantly one that claims to be liberal, especially since it cannot label as partisan the comments made by the privacy commissioner.

In the speech that I made last week, I asked two questions about Bill C-55. First, is Bill C-55 different from Bill C-42? The answer is rather obvious. They are basically the same. Second, is Bill C-55 an improved version of C-42? Unfortunately, it is not.

Since I have the opportunity to do so, I will give a part of my speech that I did not have time to deliver. The Chair monitors time very closely. As we will see, my concerns fully justify adding the amendment to the amendment.

The difference between Bill C-55 and Bill C-42 is that, somehow, Bill C-55 is worse, particularly as regards personal information.

In the first draft of this bill—because everyone agrees that C-42 was a preliminary draft for C-55—enormous power was given to a single person, namely the Minister of National Defence. At a time when the authority delegated to the executive branch is being questioned, at a time when people are asking the legislative branch, that is all of us here, to have more of a say in the decision making process, how can the government justify a bill that puts so much power in the hands of a single person?

The situation is all the more alarming because the decision to suspend people's fundamental rights will—believe it or not—be based on the minister's judgment. This is rather disturbing, is it not?

I want to take a more in depth look at the communication of information. When I read the legislation, I reread a sentence three times, because I could not believe my eyes. I even read it out loud, thinking that my eyes might mislead me, but not my ears. Unfortunately, the result was the same.

The expression “reasonably necessary” is used regarding decisions on the collection of information and the persons who will have access to this information. What does the term “necessary” mean?

This notion is left to the judgment of a person who, in a particular situation, might find it reasonable to give my credit card number to the RCMP. I am sorry, but I do not find that reasonable.

I must admit that I was more than worried when I reread the infamous expression “reasonably necessary”. The context to which this expression is applied is the following.

It is provided that the information thus collected and that could be transferred to the RCMP and to CSIS should theoretically be destroyed within seven days, which is the time it took God to create the world. Seven days is “reasonably necessary”.

However, it might not be “reasonably required” to destroy this information, and for which purposes? For the purposes of transportation security.

According to which criteria will it be determined, and who will make the final decision on this issue? The bill is silent on this matter; the Minister of Transport will rule unchecked.

Should we be concerned about that? I believe we should. When the privacy commissioner says that these measures are a dramatic expansion of privacy-invasive police powers without explanation or justification, I wonder to what kind of trick the Minister of Transport, even with the help of the whole cabinet, will resort to justify that it is reasonable not to destroy my credit card number.

This debate is not over. Last week, I asked two questions. Is Bill C-55 different? We can fairly say that the differences are minor, and that this bill is more of the same, making it increasingly clear that the government does not know how to fill the legislative agenda. This is cause for concern, especially when we know that barely two years have gone by since the last election.

Here is my second question. Is Bill C-55 an improvement over Bill C-42?

Let us face the fact: this new bill does not meet the expectations we had, and will not dissipate our concerns. At a time when respect for each other is more critical than ever, we cannot tolerate that fundamental rights and freedoms be trampled, under the pretence of trying to fight terrorism. The citizens we are seeking to protect should also be protected from abuse.

However, absolutely nothing is telling us that it will be the case should—

[Marcel Gagnon, Bloc, Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I did not know that it was my turn to speak. I wanted to add my voice to those of my colleagues who already spoke to Bill C-55, which replaces Bill C-42 that was withdrawn by the government on April 29, 2002.

When we see such a bill before parliament and the powers that the government will have under this bill, when we see the extent to which the government currently abuses these powers, we are entitled to oppose this bill, which provides for the creation of controlled access military zones.

We have seen what happened with other acts—my colleague talked earlier about the War Measures Act that was used in 1970—and now we have this bill that would create a military zone without any consultation with the provinces concerned. Personally, I think that this is an unbelievable abuse of power by the government.

It has been mentioned that this bill is so important that it amends some 20 acts dealing with virtually all economic activities in our country. This has an impact on these activities. It has an impact on the environment and on the whole economy. This bill amends acts that are very important for the administration of Canada and the provinces.

This power to change such major laws is in the hands of a single minister. One minister may, for security reasons, decide to turn everything upside down and to designate military zones throughout the country and Quebec.

I believe that such a bill must undergo extensive consultations. We must consult everyone in activity sectors that the bill may affect. Of course, we must consult the provincial governments that will have to face such problems on their territory, without even being informed beforehand.

I believe that the government has given itself abusive powers since September 11. One might wonder if, in wanting to control terrorism, the government is not becoming itself a terrorist. I find that the means that the government is using to control the territory and prevent terrorism are dangerous. The remedy should not become more dangerous than the illness.

Bill C-55 is evidence that the government is abusing its prerogatives and its authority to show toward the country in general, and the Quebec territory in particular, a military control that is absolutely undesirable to us.

I believe that Bill C-55 must be withdrawn, as Bill C-42 was previously. Before going so far in the protection, or so-called protection of the territory, the government must absolutely take the time to consult the people, to see what the needs are exactly and to give itself the means necessary to do so without abusing its power. I have absolutely no confidence in the government to simply act this way.

When such powers are provided to a single minister, we can expect abuse. It will be too late to criticize, and we will have to live with it.

For all these reasons, and given the number of laws that will be affected by this bill, I join my colleagues in saying that we are against Bill C-55. It is abusive and must be withdrawn.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for Churchill for allowing me to speak and, through the Chair, let me say that I have nothing but the utmost respect for the Chair, and I thank you for this opportunity, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly agree with a lot of what was said earlier by the member for Churchill. Canadians take a lot of their rights for granted. We seem to be living in a world where we just assume that all the rights we have had in the past will simply continue in the future. Bill C-55 speaks to some degree, perhaps, about the impacts on some of those rights. I think it is very important that not only do we have the debate today but that we continue with the debate and certainly with the ultimate opportunity of either changing the bill or not having it come forward, because it is a very dangerous bill, which in my opinion certainly presents the opportunity for impacting on civil liberties and rights. We are becoming too complacent. We are putting too much faith in the government, which is unfortunate because the government certainly has not done anything to allow for that faith to be put in it.

There are a number of areas in the legislation which I want to talk to, but first I think it is necessary to say that all of us in the House abhor terrorism. We abhor what we see going on around us right now and we certainly abhor what happened on September 11. We understand that there must be certain laws and opportunities for our police and governments to take swift action when necessary, but there has to be a check and balance. There has to be a piece of legislation that is well balanced and which absolutely ensures that our civil rights as Canadians are protected when we are trying to control terrorism around us.

We have had the piece of legislation that came forward as Bill C-42. We on this side suggested at that time that Bill C-42 was nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction of the government. After September 11, a whole bunch of people cloistered themselves in some smoke filled room and decided to put forward legislation that would allow the government to go forward, with an impact on all our rights and civil liberties.

When it went to committee, Bill C-42 got no support. It had no support from any of the witnesses who came forward. It had no support from any of the stakeholders. In fact, not only did it have no support from the opposition, but there was no support from government benches. Bill C-42, which the ministers on that side of the House had argued was absolutely, functionally necessary in order for the government to do its job, was simply pulled from the order paper.

Why, then, should we believe the government today when it says that Bill C-42 was flawed but Bill C-55 is absolutely perfect? I can assure the House that Bill C-55 is not absolutely perfect. If anything, it probably is no better than the Bill C-42 legislation that has been pulled by the government. I assume Bill C-55 will be pulled as well at some point and, thankfully, will not be passed by the House.

Those people who had the opportunity to listen to my leader, the right hon. member for Calgary Centre, heard him make the argument that in fact we already have legislation in place in the House with the government and it does have that balanced approach with respect to terrorism and civil liberties. That obviously is the Emergencies Act, a 1998 act that speaks to the necessity to have legislation and to have legislation that still protects the rights of individuals.

There are four areas I want to talk about. The first area, in which there has been a correction, is the fact that Bill C-55 was to go to the transport committee. It was our belief, and ultimately the belief of the rest of the House, that the transport committee was not the right place for a very serious piece of legislation to end up. By unanimous consent of the House it was agreed that it should go to a special legislative committee, a committee that will be struck simply to look at this piece of legislation. As a matter of fact I am told that the Speaker will be appointing the chair of that legislative committee. As far as I understand it, the chair will be an individual respected by all of us in the House, although the chair probably has not been named yet since this was just put in place yesterday. It will be a good first step to have the bill go to the legislative committee, not the transport committee.

The second point, which I have already alluded to, is that the legislation is absolutely not necessary. We currently have the Emergencies Act to fall back on, in which the police are given the proper powers and the civil liberties of Canadians are still protected.

The third, and probably the most poignant, point of this legislation is the amount of power it puts in the hands of individual ministers, heaven forbid. I know that Canadians have a great deal of respect for politicians: A recent poll has shown that 70% of them believe we are corrupt, but the Prime Minister has sent out his little minions to tell them politicians are not. However, we lead by example and unfortunately the example at the top, the current government, has a tendency to show that corruption pervades it.

I say that not necessarily in a derogatory way. The fact is that Canadians do not trust politicians. Seventy per cent of them have already said that by poll. Why would Canadians trust one minister to be able to put in interim orders with no checks and balances and which parliament will not be required to debate and agree to? Both the minister of defence and the transport minister will be given powers that are not seen today in this legislative government.

The Minister of National Defence has not really endeared himself to the Canadian public. They do not see him as a terribly competent individual and they do not have a lot of trust in him, but this man would be allowed to file an interim order that would be in effect for 23 days without anybody knowing about it. It could be in effect for 45 days without any cabinet approval. This interim order, unless specified in the order, could be in effect for one year. A minister of this House would have that power.

As the member for Churchill said, honest Canadians will ask themselves why they should have concerns about this power. I am sure that each and every one of us in the House believes that we are honest people, but that still allows the minister to put an interim order into effect that could affect each and every one of us. I find that absolutely abhorrent and certainly I feel that it is way beyond what people in our country really need.

The legislation itself is a grave danger. It is an abhorrence to me and to my party. We will fight this every step of the way, not because we do not believe there is a need to control terrorism but because we seriously believe the legislation is already in existence in the House, legislation with checks and balances.

The privacy commissioner has already fired off alarms about the legislation specifically with respect to the area of airline travel, but there are many more areas within the legislation that we have to deal with. I am glad it is to go to a legislative committee. I really wish and I hope beyond hope that all stakeholders will make their voices heard. I hope they come to committee and put forward their concerns about how they see a government out of control.

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to debate this important bill.

You will recall that on April 29, 2002, the government tabled in this House Bill C-42, which mentioned “military security zones”.

As a result of the hard work of the opposition and Canadian citizens, the government decided to withdraw that bill and replace it with Bill C-55, which is before us today.

With used material such as C-42 you cannot make something new, like the government would have us believe with Bill C-55 this morning.

I have a lot of concerns regarding Bill C-55. My first concern has to do with the minister's discretionary authority. It has to do with the powers given one or several ministers. The Minister of National Defence will have discretionary powers, and so will the Minister of Transport and the Minister of the Environment. It is of great concern to me.

Take for instance the issue of Afghanistan and Afghan prisoners. We believe the defence minister showed a little lack of judgment.

Let us add to that the fact that, if former minister Gagliano--I was going to say your friend, but I will say instead your former colleague--had had to make decisions under Bill C-55, given what we know of the conflict or problem that exists today in the Department of Public Works, it would have been rather scary, I think. His decisions might have been dubious.

The bill puts a great deal of unilateral power in the hands of ministers. What is the use of having the House of Commons then? What are we doing here in the House, what are we doing here in parliament? We wait, we look around, and we see what is going on. But we were elected to take part in decision-making.

The other concern that comes to my mind is the lack of consultation between the federal government and the provincial and territorial governments.

I would have liked the minister, before presenting such a bill or making a decision leading to the designation of a controlled access military zone, to at least pick up the phone and call his counterpart in Quebec to tell him what he intended to do. But no. He is the one who makes the decisions. He could not care less about those elected to the other levels of government and he will decide. This is wrong.

Another concern is the size, the dimensions of that controlled access military zone. The only criterion mentioned in the bill is that the zone may not be greater than is “reasonably necessary”. What does this mean? I am looking at my friend watching me and I am convinced that his view and mine are not the same, and I am convinced that the expression “reasonably necessary” does not mean the same thing to you, Mr. Speaker, as it does to me. We could argue about this for hours and just waste our time.

It does not make any sense to leave the power to decide the size of the military zone in the hands of a single person.

Everyone who lives within a controlled access military zone will surely be affected, in terms of their property and the problems that they will experience to go to work and to enter the zone, since controls will be very strict. Some people may even be denied access to this zone. These people will not have any legal recourse. They could lose money or their job, or they could experience psychological problems, but the government does not care and says “Tough luck, it is your problem. Deal with it”.

In Bill C-42, a clause provided that military security zones could be established for reasons relating to international relations, defence or national security. These reasons are not set out in Bill C-55. This means that the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Transport, or the Minister of the Environment could give any reason for their decision. Any reason making action reasonably necessary—this is a concept that can be stretched—may be given. One might go as far as to presume that, at the upcoming summit in Kananaskis, the Minister of National Defence could decide that, since heads of state from all over the world will be in attendance, there is a risk to national security and to the security of these officials, which justifies establishing a controlled access military zone.

As things now stand, this means that nobody has the right to take part in a peaceful demonstration. It is possible to demonstrate peacefully. Anyone who took part in demonstrations could be arrested and excluded from the controlled access military zone.

I have a lot of trouble not seeing this bill as similar to the War Measures Act. People remember what happened when the War Measures Act was introduced in Quebec in 1970. They remember it like it was yesterday. People were thrown in jail for no reason. They were simply thrown in jail without a trial, without the right to a lawyer, without anything, and were never compensated. We do not want to pass Bill C-55 and find ourselves with another War Measures Act on our hands.

Recently, one of my greatest concerns has been that the government is going to ignore the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The bill simply says that this bill will be exempt from the provisions of sections 3, 5 and 11. I am not the only one to be concerned about this part of the bill. Let us not forget that the privacy commissioner criticized this bill very harshly, publicly and in writing, saying that Canada was in danger of becoming a totalitarian state, a police state, a military state.

If those listening have been paying close attention, they will surely understand that I myself, like my Bloc Quebecois friends, and I think all the opposition parties, are completely opposed to this bill and are going to vote against it.

In conclusion, I thank the Chair for her tolerance and for letting me speak my mind on this bill.

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this issue today. I want to talk about a principle more than the details of Bill C-55, a principle that is very important to all of us; that is the power that the bill takes away from parliamentarians.

In the last few days we have seen the impact of the auditor general's report on a very specific issue that has became public. All Canadians now know about it. The reason it has become public is because the auditor general reports to parliament. If the auditor general reported only to the government and only to the Prime Minister, as does the ethics counsellor for example, we would never know about these accusations and grave concerns.

I believe the auditor general said that everything that could go wrong, did go wrong. She has called in the RCMP for an investigation. I am absolutely sure that if the auditor general only answered to the government and not to parliament, we would not have the same situation. It would be swept under the table. It would be downplayed and downgraded. The government would say, just like the ethics counsellor always has said, “Everything is just hunky-dory. There is no question, everything is great”, because the ethics counsellor answers to the Prime Minister.

The ethics counsellor has a huge job with huge benefits and all kinds of aspects of the job are very beneficial to the him. He can only keep that job at the pleasure of the Prime Minister, so if the he comes out with a report that criticizes the government or the Prime Minister in any way at all, he knows he is out of a job. It is a crazy thing, but the ethics counsellor has the biggest conflict of interest than anybody.

This is the problem with Bill C-55. It transfers more powers from parliament to the government. This has been a trend of the government from the time it was elected in 1993 until now. If there ever was a clear message, it is the comparison of the auditor general this week and how effective she is in bringing questions to the public and creating public awareness about concerns and wrongdoing by either officials or the government, and I hope the investigation will shed some light on that, as opposed to the ethics counsellor who does not report to parliament.

When issues come to parliament, we do not always get our way. In fact we in opposition very seldom get our way. However we do raise public awareness on issues and bring attention to them. We bring circumstances to light. because of parliament. Canadians start to learn about these things and they send messages to government. So even though we may not win every motion in every vote in the House, which we very seldom do, the impact is profound in that it goes across the country through the media, that message comes back to government and things change. This is a really good example.

Bill C-42 was brought before the House and parliament objected to it strongly on many issues. The government retracted Bill C-42 and brought in Bill C-55. That is another really important example of how the importance of parliament. Again, we did not defeat Bill C-42, but by putting public pressure on the government and by creating public awareness of the issues, it stirred up Canadians and they spoke loudly and clearly. It was not just us, or the privacy commissioner or other officials. Canadians spoke to the government because it was raised in parliament. If had not been raised in parliament, it would have slipped through and would have missed all the checks and balances, which are a fundamental pillar of our democracy.

Anything that takes power away from parliament is a mistake. When we are in opposition, we do not have a lot of power. We cannot defeat the government on issues but we have the power to create public awareness. If that power is taken away from us as parliamentarians, then our democratic rights and our ability to hold the government accountable has definitely been weakened, taking away one of the very fundamental pillars of our democracy.

I will compare the ethics counsellor with the auditor general. The only difference is that the ethics counsellor reports to the Prime Minister, owes his job to the Prime Minister, serves at the pleasure of the Prime Minister and will probably be fired if he does not come up with reports that the Prime Minister likes, as opposed to the auditor general who reports to parliament. She is not under any conflict of interest. She has no axes to grind. She looks at the facts and makes an appropriate report.

Again, I hone in on how important parliament is in that case. If it were not for parliament and the fact that the auditor general reports to parliament, we would not have that report which is so critical. It may just be the tip of the iceberg. I understand that the investigation by the auditor general may go on for a year.

Bill C-55 deals with transportation issues involving security. I come back to the same story. It will not go to the transport committee, the committee that knows transportation issues even though many aspects of Bill C-55 deal directly with transportation issues. The government has refused to let it go to the transport committee because people there know about transport issues and they will know that some aspects of the bill will not work and will raise questions and public awareness. This could again create fundamental changes which could improve it.

On a bill that would impact transport so much, why will the government not let it go to the transport committee? It is simply a contempt for parliament and its committees. There is no other reason. What could possibly be the excuse for not letting a bill like this go to the transport committee?

I point out that Bill C-42 was withdrawn. That was the previous bill that was supposed to do the same thing. It was adjusted and changed because of public pressure that was raised in parliament. Parliament is the source of public awareness for many of these issues. The committees are small parliaments. They bring out the issues. They call in witnesses to identify the problems. We do not win many votes in committees but we raise public awareness which is important so that Canadians affected can call their members of parliament, whether the member is a Liberal or whatever.

It is a very important step in our democracy that these bills, motions and issues be dealt with by committees and parliament. Even the privacy commissioner has grave concerns about this. It is amazing, he even wrote a public letter which said that the bill transferred too much power to the Minister of Transport and a significant amount power transferred to police. However will it go to the transport committee? There is not a chance because we might learn something. We might find something about it and raise public awareness on an issue which the government does not want raised. That is why it is not going to committee. It puts the power in the minister's hands.

It is incredible that interim orders can be made by the minister and he does not even have to get cabinet approval for 45 days. Why would there be 45 days to get cabinet approval when cabinet can meet within 24 hours notice any time? Why not four days or two days for cabinet approval? It can be in place for a year after that.

The pillar of democracy is checks and balances. We are the checks and balances. Parliamentarians are parliament and parliamentary committees are the checks and balances for the Canadian public. We are in a place where information is made available to Canadians. It is in parliament and the committees where the people testify, whether they support something or are against it. We take both sides and try to arrive at a logical decision. However, if we deny the right of parliament to discuss these issues and deny committees the right to examine the issues, then the public is denied the information it needs to know.

Members of the public need to know whether to support the issues, or call their members of parliament to say that they do not like an certain aspect of an issue, or to comment on something somebody said at committee or whatever. If we shut down the committees and parliament, we will have lost a very fundamental pillar of our democracy.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is extremely important for me to speak to Bill C-55 today.

To begin with, like my colleague from Mercier, I am opposed to Bill C-55 though I will support the amendment to amendment moved by the member for Rosemont--Petite-Patrie, which says:

—the bill reflects several principles that violate human rights and freedoms, which have been denounced by the Privacy Commissioner and are unrelated to transport and government operations, rendering it impracticable for the Standing Committee on Transport and Government Operations to properly consider it.

I would like to raise several points. Although I do not have time to deal with all of them, I will list a few.

Who has the power under this bill? What is the meaning of “designation, delimitation of a controlled access zone”? There is also the question of rights and freedoms. Where is the consultation process at, as well as access to passengers lists? I will deal with all these issues.

Mr. Speaker, every time you are in the chair I say to you that I come from the most beautiful area of Canada, Saguenay--Lac-Saint-Jean. Canadian Forces Base Bagotville, which is affiliated to NORAD, is located there. My house is 15 kilometers from the military base. It is a short distance.

One day, will the minister having all the powers to designate a controlled access military zone be able to include my house in that perimeter without my being informed? Will it be the same for everyone who live around Canadian Forces Base Bagotville? Laterrière and Jonquière are located very close to it.

I will be able to do things within the zone, but I will not be aware of doing so inside a controlled access military zone. I will not have the right to pursue legal remedies. It would be up to the minister or to the President of the Treasury Board to decide if I have the right to do so.

This is unconscionable. We are in 2002. We do not live in a totalitarian state. As the Liberals often like to say, we are in Canada and we have the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They recently celebrated the anniversary of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. With this bill, they are disregarding all the fine principles of the Access to Information Act; it is as though they had taken the charter, folded it up and shoved it into a drawer. The minister is saying, “It is I, the Minister of National Defence, who will determine what you will have access to from now on.”

First, the House considered Bill C-42. There was a general outcry about that bill, especially on the part of the Bloc Quebecois and the opposition parties. Everybody said that the bill made no sense whatsoever. We thought this government had listened, that it had understood the objections to Bill C-42.

When the government introduced Bill C-55, we were sure this legislation would show that it had really understood. But now we see that Bill C-55 is even worse than the previous one, because it goes against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It provides for the creation of controlled access military zones without any notice being given to the people living within the perimeter of the zone.

Tomorrow, I will take the plane to go back to my riding. Under this new legislation, if the governor in council, the RCMP or CSIS wanted to see the passenger list, the airlines would be compelled to give it to them, together with 34 other elements, and any further element the minister may require, at his own discretion.

This means that I will no longer have the right to move around on my own private business. This is very much contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I have listened to the leader of the Progressive Conservative party's discussion of war measures. We have experience of war measures; Quebecers are the ones who were arrested. I have friends who were. Without any summons, without any right to an attorney, they were arrested. They are still marked by their experiences. They were arrested under the War Measures Act.

A colleague from the government side has said, “Certainly, there are still some question marks, There will have to be discussions. They will have to be examined in committee”. Hon. members will surely remember what happened with Bill C-20 on referendum clarity. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice of the day claimed to be very open-minded when the bill was introduced. The minister's words at that time were, “Yes, we will be open. We will study it in committee. We will listen to witnesses and improvements will be made”. We know what happened .There were no changes made. The bill was passed as introduced. They rammed it through.

The way the government is acting is unacceptable. I always say that there no democracy in Canada anymore. Today, on May 9, 2002, with Bill C-55, I think that this government is giving itself disproportionate powers following the events of September 11.

We had laws to deal with what happened on September 11. In Canada, we had laws to fight terrorism. We only had to improve existing laws, use and enforce them. Why introduce this bill?

We know what this minister has done in the past. We are told not to talk about it, but all Quebecers and Canadians talk about it. He is the one who will be responsible for this legislation. This is serious. And he will be the only one. Parliament will not even be consulted.

Mr. Speaker, like me, you are an elected member. We represent our respective constituents, as do all members in this House, and we will not have the right to discuss what the minister will decide.

This is serious. If this is not a dictatorship, it is very close. This is why we, in the Bloc Quebecois, members from Quebec, those who defend the interests of their constituents, are saying to this government that it must withdraw this bill and go back to the drawing board.

It is not that we are opposed to protection against terrorism, as the Liberal member said. Of course, there are other approaches available today with the Internet, but we will never accept this bill as it stands. Let the government do its homework; then, we will get back to the bill.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe it is important to take part in this debate. I believe it is important to support the Bloc Quebecois' amendment to the amendment, which says:

this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-55—

The amendment to the amendment adds that the bill contains several principles:

—that violate human rights and freedoms, which have been denounced by the Privacy Commissioner—

First, I would like to point out the excellent job my colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel did of presenting the Bloc's position on Bill C-55.

He was very forceful while pointing to the fact that, by amending Bill C-42, the government had in part accepted the arguments presented by the Bloc, arguments which at first were made fun of by people who said that the Bloc was exaggerating.

We are happy to see that some of those arguments have been listened to. However, with regard to many other parts of this bill, not only have our arguments not been listened to, but the bill contains new elements that raise very serious concerns.

I will quickly remind our listeners, as my colleague did earlier, that this bill is made up of three main parts. I hope it will never become law. I hope also that every government member, including the ministers, will hear not only the various accents on this side of the House, but also the thrust of what is being said.

I would like to start by reminding the House that my colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel said that, in dealing with terrorism, there is no worse way of preventing such attacks than depriving us of our rights and freedoms.

What makes a democratic society strong is democracy. What makes a democratic society strong is respect for rights and freedoms, and citizens co-operating to insure proper respect for rights and freedoms, since they belong to every single one of us.

As I was saying, this bill is made up of three parts. The first one deals with interim orders; it has been vigorously condemned by the member for Calgary Centre. It gives certain ministers the power to make interim orders, a power we do not need, a power that does not make any sense, is not necessary and deprives the House of the capacity to be made aware of the reasons for such an interim order. These unlimited powers can be in effect for 45 days.

The second element of the bill deals with the famous issue of controlled access military zones. On this, we are quite clear, and we have been from the outset. Provincial governments, the Government of Quebec must be consulted before any of these zones are established.

Let us not forget that until now, the prevailing rule has been that military intervention is only undertaken when requested by a provincial attorney general. Therefore, we must not take advantage of the current situation to grant powers that violate the current constitutional rules.

The third element deals with privacy issues. This is what I would like to speak to. The first speech, made May 1, outlined the fears of the privacy commissioner, Mr. George Radwanski.

On May 7, he not only wrote the Minister of Transport, but made his letter public.

Here is what he wrote, and I quote:

My hope had been to avoid unnecessary public controversy by working together cooperatively, as had been the case with Bills C-44 and C-42. I regret that you have declined to take this course.

As you know, I have stated repeatedly since September 11 that I would never seek, as Privacy Commissioner, to stand in the way of any appropriate initiatives to enhance public security against terrorism, even if they entail some limitation of privacy rights. I have also stated, however, that the burden of proof must always rest with those who propose some new limitation on a fundamental human right such as privacy.

I remind the House that these are the words of Privacy Commissioner of Canada.

He goes on to say that in order to meet that burden of proof, he proposes four criteria. The first criterion is that the measure must be necessary; the second, it must be effective; the third criterion is that it must be proportional to the security benefit to be derived; and the fourth is that there must be no other, less invasive means to achieve the same objective.These are the four criteria that he set out. He then continues with real questions.

It must be noted that this bill gives the minister the authority to require any air carrier to provide information set out in the schedule. At this time, there are 34 elements, but it says that others could be added by the governor in council. Carriers are thus required to provide information that is in their control or that comes into their control within 30 days.

Not only is the carrier required to provide this information, the nature of which we know in part but not totally because other elements could be added, but there is a list of people within the government who, once they have the information, could disclose it to others. This is where it gets really scary.

I will now read section 4.82 found in the bill, which I am allowed to do.

A person designated under subsection (2) or (3) may disclose information referred to in subsection (7) to the Minister, the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, any peace officer, any employee of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, any air carrier or operator of an aerodrome...if the designated person has reason to believe that the information is relevant to transportation security. Any information disclosed to the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority or to an air carrier or operator of an aerodrome or other aviation facility under this subsection must also be disclosed to the Minister.

This information is disclosed to the RCMP or CSIS.

It is obvious that this kind of invasion of privacy to fight terrorism is unnecessary. It is very abusive. Therefore, it seems urgent to me that the government agree to work with the commissioner and accept to curb its appetite.

I just heard a member on the other side of the House say that these requests would be restricted to air travelers. Come on. There could be other acts. The fact that a person travels by plane does not mean that—

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the amendment to the amendment on second reading of Bill C-55. I will follow up on the comments made by the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques. Incidentally, the name of his riding has two letters more than mine. Sometimes, people criticize me because the name of my riding is very long. I wish to congratulate my colleague for having held the employment insurance horror show, yesterday.

Let me explain how I want to address Bill C-55. The horror show I have just mentioned showed us how workers, particularly those who are unemployed, are the victims of injustices, including those that relate to the federal parental leave, to the older unemployed who have been forgotten by the federal government, to the plundering of the EI fund surplus, and to seasonal workers, who are the victims of the latest reform. I am using this analogy and these examples of injustices simply as an introduction to Bill C-55 as a whole.

It is very ironic to see that, 20 years ago, this government, this same party, unilaterally patriated the Constitution, under Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau and the current Prime Minister, who was then his principal adviser, henchman and Minister of Justice. We saw him sign, with the Queen, the unilateral patriation of the Constitution. On April 17, in reference to this sad event for Quebecers, the government, and particularly the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, only alluded to one aspect of this event.

They only talked about the fact that this unilateral patriation gave Canada a charter of rights and freedoms. Sure, it gave us a charter of rights and freedoms, but they tried to fool us by using this a smokescreen, as a beekeeper does when he sprays some kind of a smokescreen to numb his bees while he collects the honey they produced.

So, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs tried to numb us with this smokescreen by saying that, on April 17, 1982, Canada adopted a charter of rights and freedoms, but he refrained from alluding to the unilateral patriation of the Constitution.

It is ironic to see that this government, which is boasting about the fact that it gave Canada a charter of rights and freedoms, is taking advantage of this to introduce Bill C-55

Bill C-55 is a modified version of Bill C-42, nothing more, nothing less—sort of like “new” Coke. Thanks to the work of the Bloc Quebecois and other parties in the House, including some members of the Liberal caucus whom we must commend—and I say this in a non-partisan way—the government was told by its caucus that there were problems with Bill C-42.

As a result, the government stepped back, withdrew the bill and told justice officials to redo their homework in order to come up with a modified product, a substitute, which is Bill C-55

I would remind the government that Bill C-55 is no better than Bill C-42. Once again, within government benches, within the Liberal caucus, progressive voices are saying that Bill C-55 goes much too far in terms of restricting rights and freedoms. Thus the irony on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the charter of rights and freedoms.

The members of the Bloc Quebecois believe that Bill C-55 continues to pose a threat to citizens' rights and freedoms. For this reason, it is our opinion that the bill absolutely must be amended to require that the government of Quebec and the governments of the provinces give their consent before a controlled access military zone can be declared on their territory. This is not just another virtual invasion; it is a physical invasion that the government could carry out using national security as an excuse. Under the pretext of terrorist threats, it could declare controlled access military zones.

For example, at the next G-8 summit, to be held in Kananaskis, Alberta, the government intends to create a controlled access military zone. Earlier, the member for Kamouraska--Rivière-du-Loup--Témiscouata--Les Basques quite rightly mentioned this. I would like to take this opportunity to repeat that the Armoury and the Citadel are located within Quebec City. A short distance away on the northwestern edge of the city lies the Valcartier military base. There are also other examples of military bases.

As members know, I come from the Saguenay, a region of which I am very proud. All my relatives still live there. My colleague from Jonquière worked very hard on the file concerning Russian MOX which was to go through the Bagotville base. This base plays an important role in North-American defence within NORAD.

This means that because the Bagotville military base is located in the Saguenay--Lac-Saint-Jean area, the entire area could be designated a restricted access military zone, a controlled access military zone. This is ridiculous.

One person, the Minister of National Defence, is being given powers that are much too broad. I am leaving aside the actual personality of this minister.

I see that you are getting ready to warn me, Mr. Speaker. You look like you are not going to allow me to speak about this for very long. I well recall that we heard from the Minister of National Defence at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding his knowledge of the fact that the Americans had taken prisoners of war. The military and senior officials were not particularly full of praise about the ability of the present incumbent of the Defence portfolio, about his mental alertness. As they say, he was asleep at the switch for seven or eight days, our Minister of National Defence.

We will rise above the fray and leave aside the man's personality. Is it acceptable, reasonable, normal, in 2002 to agree to put so much power in the hands of one person? This is what Bill C-55 does. It gives the Minister of National Defence incredible powers.

An example of an entire region that could be designated a controlled access military zone is Quebec City, because the Citadel or the Armoury could be controlled access military zones.

For all these reasons, Bloc Quebecois members support the amendment to the amendment put forward by the member for Rosemont--Petite-Patrie and are unable to vote in favour of Bill C-55 as it now stands.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise and speak in the House of Commons. Today we are dealing with an important matter, Bill C-55, which the government introduced late last month.

This is an improved package of public safety initiatives. They are in support of the government's anti-terrorism plan. The bill that is under discussion today known as the public safety act, 2002 replaces Bill C-42 which was introduced in the wake of September 11 last year. The government sat on it for more than four months and then dropped it quietly from the order paper and came back with Bill C-55 on April 29.

It will come as no surprise to people who follow politics and know the proud history of the New Democratic Party when it comes to standing up and speaking out for civil liberties. We will be opposing Bill C-55 vigorously because it amounts to nothing short of a sneak attack on human rights and gives virtually Orwellian powers to certain federal cabinet ministers, particularly the Minister of Transport.

We are appalled at the powers the government wants to give itself to spy on passenger lists of people travelling on our airplanes to domestic and foreign destinations. The government introduced the anti-terrorism Bill C-42 and it was widely criticized at that time as being too draconian and dangerous to the freedom and liberty of Canadian citizens. That may have been why the government did not proceed with it.

We do not know that but the new version has not been improved. It is still heavy-handed. Some people have said it is draconian and that is unfortunate. It is understandable when bills are formulated quickly with a knee-jerk reaction in the aftermath of a tragedy like September 11. However, having given time to reflect it is unworthy for this to come back in this sleight of hand way.

It is not just New Democrats who are speaking out. The privacy commissioner has deep concerns about the legislation, so much so that he took the relatively extraordinary step of releasing publicly the letter that he wrote to the transport minister on the topic and he was dealing specifically with clause 4.82. His concern was that the bill's provisions could fundamentally and unnecessarily alter the balance between individuals and the state that exists and should exist in a free society such as Canada's.

In other words, what he was saying was that he feared deeply for the privacy and civil rights of Canadians. The privacy commissioner is not alone in his concerns. There is a backbench Liberal that irrespective of party policies all of us listen to with great interest. The member for Mount Royal, a prominent civil rights lawyer, says the bill gives undue power to cabinet ministers over the civil liberty of Canadians and he too has expressed his deep concerns. The privacy commissioner, Mr. Radwanski, has called on the government to go slow on the legislation because of its importance and its ability to invade the privacy of Canadians.

The New Democratic Party is making the same call for caution and prudence in the protection of civil liberties just as its predecessors did when the War Measures Act was introduced in this Chamber some 32 years ago. People like Tommy Douglas and David Lewis stood up and spoke out against what was a heavy-handed piece of legislation. That was at a time of emergency. This is on reflection and it is unworthy of the government to proceed in this way on this bill at this time.

It has waited for months to introduce the bill and now all of a sudden we are told that we must rush this through the House of Commons. We must get it through before the House adjourns for the summer recess probably in about a month's time. What is the rush? Where has the government been since September 11 when the bill was introduced in November and then sat for four and a half months?

Since then we have been dealing with relatively miniscule items. All members are seized with the fact that we have not been overwhelmed with heavy-duty legislation. There was ample time to come back and discuss this. Now all of a sudden after months of inaction we get the bill and we get the charge that we must rush it through in short order without ample consideration.

The New Democratic Party believes that it is our duty as parliamentarians to give the legislation the kind and depth of scrutiny that it deserves and requires. We are asking the questions that Canadians want answered, and in doing so we want to give them time to hone in on exactly what the government is doing with Bill C-55.

We oppose the legislation. We call upon the government to reconsider the tight timeframe that is indicated and give us the space necessary to consult Canadians and parliamentarians on Bill C-55. Perhaps a way that this could be done, that would give it the in depth scrutiny it deserves, would be to have a special subcommittee of justice, or perhaps transport if that is the case. A group of experienced politicians could look specifically at the legislation in depth, deal with it and bring it back modified to protect the civil liberties that we are concerned about here, particularly with airline passengers.

I want to read into the record some of the comments that Mr. Radwanski made in his extraordinarily transparent letter to the Minister of Transport regarding any initiative that would infringe on the privacy rights. He talked about four criteria:

It must be demonstrably necessary to address a specific problem or need. It must be demonstrably likely to be effective in addressing that problem or need. The limitation of privacy rights must be proportional to the security benefit to be derived.

After studying that with care Mr. Radwanski concluded that this particular bill did not meet that criteria. He ends by asking in his open letter to the Minister of Transport the following question:

What considerations lead you to the view that this very serious limitation on privacy rights would be proportional to the benefits to be derived?

The privacy commissioner is signaling to members of parliament on all sides of the House that we need to be extremely concerned about this piece of legislation. We cannot rush it through the House in the dying days of the parliamentary session. We must give it the time and serious reflection that it needs and deserves. That is why we are calling upon the government to amend its decision, perhaps send it to a committee, and not deal with it in this last moment rush before the House rises for the summer.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on the amendment to the amendment brought forward by the member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie with regard to Bill C-55.

The amendment to the main motion, moved by the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, reads as follows, and I quote:

this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-55, An Act to amend certain Acts of Canada, and to enact measures for implementing the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, in order to enhance public safety, since the Bill reflects several principles--

The amendment to the amendment proposed by the member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie adds the following to the amendment:

that violate human rights and freedoms, which have been denounced by the Privacy Commissioner and are--

And the amendment goes on as follows:

unrelated to transport and government operations, rendering it impractical for the Standing Committee on Transport and Government Operations to properly consider it.

I think that the amendment to the amendment is very relevant. Members will recall that Bill C-55 replaces Bill C-42, which was withdrawn by the government. Bill C-55 was introduced on April 29, 2002. Its predecessor was withdrawn by the government following severe criticism, including by the Bloc Quebecois. We realized that a form of police state was being created. The government said that it took into account the arguments that were put forward and withdrew its bill. It seems that, with this government, bureaucrats are often the ones who make decisions for the ministers. The contents of the bill before us are strikingly similar to those of its predecessor. The bill does not confirm the claim made by the government that it really listened to arguments and made significant changes.

The government accepted the Bloc's arguments and tightened the criteria to create controlled access military zones, but it is still the minister who has the authority to designate such zones, the same minister who forgot to inform his government about the prisoners of war.

We want to focus attention on the fact that this is being entrusted to the present minister—or some future minister—who has demonstrated that he was capable of major mistakes. In the case of delineation of controlled access military zones, errors could have very significant impacts on the public. Deaths could even ensue. If the DND personnel react too quickly, if the zone is not indicated clearly, with the spirit of the law as we have it before us, justification of behaviour could mean that a wrong decision could lead to some very serious consequences. We feel that this decision ought to come from more than a single minister, who is subject to political pressures, as we know. It should be decided by a larger body.

It is, moreover, very surprising that there is no requirement of approval by the Government of Quebec. It is still not required to consent to having a controlled access military zone on its territory. Since it is the minister who decides to delineate a controlled zone, not only where there are military facilities, which is obvious, but also in a wider area, concrete practical situations can crop up which will be somewhat bizarre and potentially dangerous as well.

In Quebec City, for instance, the Armories are about 150 metres away from the Parliament. What the minister could decide, if the agreement of Quebec is not required, strikes me as unacceptable. If the minister is justified in creating such a zone, there must be a reasonable agreement with the province that this can be done. We are not disputing the necessity of having secure military zones, but the powers given the minister in this bill are too broad. What is more, the agreement of the Government of Quebec, or of any other province if that province were involved, is not required. This strikes us as a shortcoming in the bill.

The “reasonably necessary” criterion for the size of these zones is not really changed. It remains highly discretionary. What does “reasonably necessary” mean? Can the minister decide that, for him, in light of a given event, it has suddenly become reasonable to extend the military zone, and then 24 hours later will come the realization that the problem was not of such a broad scope?

I think that a lot of room is being left for interpretation. We have proof that the present government needs specific and clearly set out rules, rather than a degree of leeway that it would use inappropriately.

Also noteworthy is the fact that people who have been wronged by the designation of a military zone or the implementation of measures to enforce the designation cannot take legal action for loss, damage or injury. If the designation of a military zone by the minister or action taken by the army causes some of our fellow citizens to be wronged, there is no legal recourse available to them. That can put our troops in a state of mind that might have a negative impact on the people living around these military zones.

When troops know that they have overarching rights and powers and that the State will not have to compensate for any damage they could cause, they might take some action that could be considered unacceptable later on. Then, when the time comes to right some wrongs and to compensate, it will not be possible. This is in violation of one of our basic human rights.

In other words, the government should be held accountable for any unacceptable action taken by the military and pay the price. Much more reasonable behaviour would then be expected.

The reasons behind thedesignation of military security zones, namely theprotection of international relations or national defence or security, were stipulated in Bill C-42 but are not mentioned in Bill C-55.

We are left to believe that any reason is good enough, although Bill C-42 had identified reasons that could be deemed acceptable or not. The government told us it had consulted the people and taken into account their concerns, but what we have here says otherwise.

No specific reason has to be given pursuant to this bill; “any reasonable grounds” is good enough. The minister is given more latitude, not less, which is also totally unacceptable.

The bill still contains provisions under which different ministers, and in one case government officials, may make interim orders. There are two changes. They deal with the tabling of orders in parliament within 15 days, and provide a shorter period, 45 days instead of 90, during which interim orders are in force without cabinet approval.

An important deficiency in this bill is the lack of advance verification for consistency with the charter and the enabling legislation by the Clerk of the Privy Council.

With everything I have mentioned since the beginning of my remarks, we can conclude that it is pretty much an open bar, and the minister can do pretty much what he wants. They saw to it that there would be no cost for the government if a mistake were made and that they could justify actions and interim orders without having to ensure they were consistent with the charter.

Because of what happened in the past in Quebec, we have deep concerns. We want to be sure the army will not be able to march in and take actions that are not consistent with the charter, with very serious consequences that could not be repaired. We would end up in a situation where citizens have no right of appeal. This is totally unacceptable.

Bill C-55 would allow two other stakeholders to obtain information about passengers directly from air carriers and operators of reservation systems. They are the commissioner of the RCMP and the director of CSIS.

This information may be provided for two reasons; if there are imminent threats against transportation security, and to identify individuals for whom a warrant has been issued. I believe this provision should be narrowed. It says that the information required by the RCMP and CSIS “must be destroyed within seven days after it is provided or disclosed”.

However, when we look at the calendar of an emergency situation, during these seven days, this material may be used in many ways. The government should ensure that it is not establishing the equivalent of a police state. It is not the practice in Quebec and in Canada to have people checking our identity on every street corner. I think we must be careful in this regard.

In conclusion, I believe that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie is very relevant. Indeed, Bill C-55 must not be passed as it stands. Moreover, it must not be passed because it contains several principles that go against human rights and freedoms, principles that were condemned by the privacy commissioner, Mr. Radwanski, someone who is close to the Liberal government, who was appointed and who has since expressed major reservations about Bill C-55.

I think the government should take this into consideration. We need meaningful amendments. If we want the bill to be acceptable some day, indepth changes must be made. As it stands, it is unacceptable, in my view. I intend to vote against the bill, and I will vote in favour of the amendment to the amendment moved by the member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that I managed to get the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport out of his lethargy.

I would remind him that, when I spoke earlier, I made a connection between the charter of rights and freedoms, the 20th anniversary of which the members across the way were celebrating a few days ago, and the fact that Bill C-55 threatens this same charter of rights and freedoms. You will also remember, Mr. Speaker, that I mentioned in my previous remarks that, in connection with the charter of rights and freedoms, some have a tendency to forget to mention the shameful events surrounding the unilateral patriation of the constitution, a view that was obviously shared by the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord when he stated, on December 15, 1999, “He [the Prime Minister] was also, along with Mr. Trudeau, behind the unilateral patriation of the constitution in 1982, despite the near unanimity of the national assembly against it”.

I will go even further. Regarding the unfair and revolting Bill C-20, the so-called clarity bill, the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, at a time when he had more spine, stated, on February 22, 2000:

The Liberals absolutely do not want to consult the public to find out what it thinks of this measure...Arrogance, contempt and indifference toward the House of Commons and toward all Canadians are now part of a behaviour that is beginning to spread throughout this government.

On March 20, he said:

—the wondrous Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs—

I hope that he has since patched things up with him.

—found a means for getting a bill passed for the sole purpose of disgusting everybody in Quebec and showing the rest of the country “Here we are teaching Quebecers a lesson, here we are putting them in their place”.

It did not take him long to change his tune, because only a few months later, he became a Liberal member. It appears as though he liked being taught a lesson, and now he seems to want to teach Quebecers a lesson himself.

I could go on and read pages and pages more like this, but I do not want to unduly embarrass my colleague from Chicoutimi--Le Fjord. I would like to provide my colleague the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport with an opportunity to return to his coma, and all my other colleagues a few moments to focus on Bill C-55, currently before the House.

In my earlier remarks, I talked about the very serious concerns raised by Bill C-55 in terms of respect for the human rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and, more recently, by the Canadian Charter of Rights and freedoms.

For example, when the Minister of Defence is given the authority to designate, on his own, security zones, the size of which is not defined, around military establishments or equipment, when we think of the powers that are given to cabinet members and even to bureaucrats—people who are not accountable under the principle of ministerial responsibility, which the Patriotes fought for in 1837-1838 and won since we have this responsible government today—that constitutes a very serious violation of democratic freedoms.

As I was saying earlier, the same applies to personal information regarding air travelers to which CSIS and the RCMP will have access. This bill raises very serious concerns.

I urge all members of the House, including Liberal members who share our views but who cannot speak up because of the very hermetic, monolithic and strict party line imposed by the Liberal Party, to make their views known and to encourage the government to go back to the drawing board, as it did with Bill C-42, and come up with a bill that is much more acceptable than this one in terms of respect for rights and freedoms.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I said it earlier. You did not hear me. I told the member for Bourassa that I have a lot of respect for Lucien Bouchard because he at least was consistent. He did cross the floor of the House because he had certain beliefs. He did not act out of political opportunism.

I could keep on quoting the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord. For instance, on April 7, 2000, he said and I quote, “This is why I am saying that this government has no economic or social agenda”.

I will stop here to get back to the subject matter of the bill, because I am convinced that this is what people in Quebec and Canada are expecting of us. They do not expect us to criticize those who are supposed to represent voters. They want us to deal with issues they believe are a priority.

Therefore, I am very happy to rise today to speak to Bill C-55, which replaces the now defunct Bill C-42, which we did criticize and about which we raised several concerns regarding its various provisions.

First, if we look at only one aspect of the bill, the controlled access military zones, we must admit the government heeded the advice of the Bloc Quebecois, which was asking for significant changes to the provisions contained in Bill C-42. Bill C-55 is proof the government accepted the Bloc's arguments and tightened the criteria to create controlled access military zones.

However, several aspects of the bill, as they currently stand, seem to us rather unsatisfacatory, namely those dealing with controlled access military zones, as I mentioned, interim orders and intelligence gathering.

Concerning controlled access military zones, we regret that the minister still retains discretionary power to intervene. It is still the minister who has the authority to designate controlled access military zones, the same minister who forgot to inform his government about the prisoners of war.

We find it rather odd and particularly dangerous to give the minister in charge discretionary power to designate controlled access military zones.

For instance, following the decision by the minister regarding taking prisoners during the recent events in Afghanistan, we believe that discretionary power should not be given to the minister alone.

We also worry about what will happen in Quebec. Contrary to what the hon. member for Chicoutimi--Le Fjord would have us believe, we have never suggested in this House that the bill could extend to the whole Quebec territory.

He should read all the remarks my colleagues have made on Bill C-55. We are not suggesting that this bill could turn the entirety of Quebec into a controlled access military zone. But the hon. member for Chicoutimi--Le Fjord must admit that certain areas, environments and lands could become military zones.

I have just listened to questions asked in this House about the Quebec national assembly. The member who mentioned the risk that the area around the national assembly be designated a controlled access military zone is not a Bloc Quebecois member.

There is an undeniable danger, and all the more so because military zones are designated at the discretion of the minister, and nothing in the bill provides that the approval of the Quebec government is needed. Therefore, Quebec's approval is not always required for the designation of controlled access military zones in Quebec.

As I said before, not only are a lot of powers in the hands of a single man, pursuant to the discretionary power stipulated in the bill before the House, but there is nothing to ensure that provinces will be consulted when such zones are established.

In areas not under federal jurisdiction and where the designated area is not on crown lands but somewhere in Quebec, we would like the government of Quebec and the rest of the provinces to give their approval beforehand.

The discretionary power to determine the size of these military zones has not changed much. It is still left to the discretion of the minister.

Bills C-42 and C-55 have something in common. The criteria for the designation of these military zones are again left at the discretion of the minister. That is rather worrisome.

Another matter of concern, and maybe the most important aspect of the bill that I will address, is that the government will not allow any action for damage by reason only of the designation of acontrolled access military zone or the implementationof measures to enforce the designation.

Since the Speaker is indicating that I only have two minutes left, I will conclude.

This is a serious issue. The Privacy Commissioner told us so. He said, and I quote “Some practices are similar to those that exist in totalitarian states”.

I shall therefore table an amendment to the amendment to the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-55, seconded by the hon. member for Laval Centre.

I move:

That the amendment be modified by adding after the word “principles“ the following:

“that violate human rights and freedoms, which have been denounced by the Privacy Commissioner and are”.

I am therefore pleased to table this amendment to the amendment.

I close with my wishes for a thorough reflection on this, and for the member for Chicoutimi--Le Fjord to come on side with the arguments of the Bloc Quebecois in order to lend this bill greater transparency and greater protection for the public.

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

That is not nonsense it is the truth. If the hon. member had been here this morning he would have seen that happen. I seem to have touched a raw nerve. We can hardly hear ourselves think in this place all of sudden. Even though they are few in numbers they seem to be making a lot of noise.

The hon. member for Chicoutimi--Le Fjord who just spoke said opposition members should not exaggerate when they are talking about this legislation. He said they should not exaggerate the extent of the bill. He went on to say quite correctly that it amends 20 other pieces of legislation. Therefore it is an all-encompassing omnibus bill. We all agree on that.

This is a huge bill. It amends many statutes. The amendment to Bill C-55 put forward by my hon. colleague from Port Moody--Coquitlam--Port Coquitlam that we are debating states that the House should decline to give second reading to Bill C-55 since the bill reflects several principles unrelated to transport and government operations rendering it impractical for the Standing Committee on Transportation and Government Operations to properly consider it. I believe that is a well thought out amendment.

By their own admission government members who have addressed the bill, including several ministers, have pointed out how all-encompassing the bill is and yet they somehow expect the standing committee on transport to deal with this. That is totally unreasonable.

Are opposition members exaggerating when they voice concerns about the bill? Here are some concerns that were expressed yesterday in Hansard . We will see if they are an exaggeration. The first statement is:

First, while the bill seeks to circumscribe the power initially conferred upon the Minister of National Defence in the predecessor Bill C-42 to designate any part of Canada a military security zone, the scope of both the exercise and application of this power remain problematic.

I wonder if the hon. member from Chicoutimi would say that is an exaggeration. This particular member went on to say:

However, the definition of a “controlled access military zone” has a certain indeterminate feature to it, which could, however inadvertently, be stretched to result in the very thing that this revised version was designed to prevent, for example, the application of this power to something like the G-8 meeting in Kananaskis, simply because the presence of Canadian military equipment or personnel or foreign diplomatic personnel with their related equipment may result in a military zone being nonetheless designated.

Further on the member voiced another concern:

Second, and more important, even if the scope of this exercise of ministerial power is appropriately delineated and clarified, the absence of any cabinet or parliamentary accountability is disturbing. In effect, there is no requirement for cabinet authorization of this ministerial decree.

I wonder if the member, who is still sitting in the Chamber, would say that is an exaggeration to be concerned about that. At the end of this particular member's speech he went on to say:

However, there are also disconcerting features, as I have also described, that taint the bill and which need to be addressed and redressed so we can promote human security without unnecessarily intruding on civil liberties.

I agree with this particular member. It was a Liberal member, the hon. member for Mount Royal, who gave a great speech in this place about the bill. He voiced some thoughtful concerns about it.

However, I did not hear any of the Liberals. They are applauding now but if one of the opposition members were to raise those same concerns they would say we were exaggerating and not presenting them truthfully. However when it is a Liberal member who voices the same concerns everyone over there applauds. They nod their heads and say that is great.

It is a little ridiculous that we can never have a debate in this place without the government trying to play these partisan tricks on the public. However I think the public sees through this for what it is.

This piece of legislation has been ill thought through. The powers that are being bestowed upon the ministers are completely unnecessary. By their own admission, when we were confronted by the emergency of September 11, the Minister of Transport, the Prime Minister and other ministers had the authority and the power to act appropriately. They do not need this legislation.

[André Harvey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased, like all my other colleagues, to make a few comments about Bill C-55.

As parliamentarians, all party politics set aside, our role is not to exaggerate the impact of a law, but rather to try to fully understand the scope of a bill like Bill C-55, which, of course, is the result of very intensive consultations with provincial and territorial governments, and with many other Canadians.

We have to realize that we are not dealing with an easily identifiable opponent, but rather terrorists operating in many countries and using great cunning to perpetrate their dastardly deeds. They had proven this long before the attacks of September 11.

My colleagues from the Bloc made comments that, at times, I found rather exaggerated. Luckily, exaggeration does not make one sick, otherwise some of them would suffer from an incurable disease. I remember their speeches on Bill C-7, concerning young offenders. The end of the world was near.

As a matter of fact, the governments of the provinces and of Quebec will benefit from a massive injections of tens of millions of dollars for the administration of Bill C-7. I am convinced that the children of Quebec will not all be in prison tomorrow morning. Luckily, our justice minister assumed his responsibilities. He steered this act through the House of Commons.

If we look back at how the act has been administered over the last few months, we see that, despite all the dire consequences the Bloc members were talking about at the time--it was worse than Chernobyl--everything is going fine.

Our country has to deal with a very serious situation. The government's responsibility is, rightly so, to deal with it. We have to do everything we can to fight this very insidious and imperceptible evil, which caused the death of thousands of people in a few seconds in the United States, our main trading partner. The Americans are people with whom we share economic, cultural, and recreational values, among others. The role of responsible governments in the world is to assume their responsibilities and to make laws.

Bill C-55 will allow us to amend 20 acts affecting several departments. This is not an ad hoc process. The provisions of this bill allow us to take measures that also respect the democracy in which we live. Our role is to take our responsibilities to obtain the tools that will allow us to respond to emergencies. This will not be done only at the behest of one person, someone responsible for a department, whether defence, ustice or transport.

Let us take the example of September 11. If the Minister of Transport had not had the authority to react to the closure of U.S. airspace, what could have happened? The number of dead in New York could have skyrocketed. The government's role is to acquire the tools that are essential to assume its responsibilities.

In the hours that follow, it is time to justify measures taken. After that, it is time to get the government and our institutions back to normal.

Bill C-55 affects several departments, health, environment, justice, solicitor general and transport, which I have the pleasure to work with, in partnership with the minister directly assigned to this department. All the ministers are doing their job with the greatest respect for all democratic institutions.

It is not true to say that all of Canada will be considered as a controlled access zone. There are limits to exaggerating things.

Our fellow citizens are beginning to realize that exaggeration should be checked. If exaggeration made people sick, some would have an incurable disease and would have trouble finding a treatment. This situation has to be dealt with in a balanced way, and this is what the government is doing with this bill.

This bill has been introduced in this House, but it will also be referred to a committee, which will analyze all aspects of the bill. Some improvements may have to be made. We will have the opportunity to consider them thoroughly. We did that to such an extent with Bill C-42 that it was finally withdrawn. The bill was reworked and replaced with Bill C-55. This bill is not perfect, and will be referred to a committee to be improved.

I wish to emphasize that a $7.7 billion budget has been allocated to various departments in order to improve our control structure and increase security for Canadians. We also travel throughout the world. Quebec is not the exclusive property of the PQ and the Bloc.

As a matter of fact, exaggeration goes over so badly that they are only at 20% or 25% in the polls. I know them well. I have fought several election campaigns against them. It is a real pleasure to campaign against them and to talk about their record. I wish to tell them once again that we are pleased to introduce Bill C-55. It is not perfect, but it can be improved.

After extended consultations with provincial governments across the country, we will now refer the bill to the committee. We are not naive and we know that nothing is perfect. We believe that Bill C-55, which allows us to improve several legislative measures involving several departments, must be approached meticulously and with respect for our fellow citizens.

Quebec will not be surrounded by a barricade. This is not how things work in life. We saw at the Quebec summit that the security perimeter was erected after a period of consultation, in order to allow people from all these countries to hold their discussions in peace. Access to important activities must be controlled. Whether we like it or not, this is how things work. We also have to protect ourselves.

When officials from all over the world are gathered together, we make every effort to ensure that the discussions are taking place in a serene environment, to promote a positive outcome.

I am looking forward to Bill C-55 being referred to a committee. I am looking forward to hearing witnesses and my friends from the opposition parties, particularly those from Quebec, the Bloc Quebecois members. I am convinced that we will be receptive to what stakeholders have to say. I am looking forward to it and I am used to hearing their speeches. I try to react with wisdom to all their attacks. As I said before, what I like best is to campaign against Bloc Quebecois members. I really enjoy it, particularly when we win. Balance is important in a democracy. They have a point of view. When things go bad, it is always Canada's fault. When things go well, it is always thanks to Quebec. This is not how things work in real life.

I am convinced that we have an important role to play as a government, and it is not the sometimes negative comments of Bloc Quebecois members that will slow us down.

I look at the situation in Quebec and I see that all Quebecers want a provincial election. But the PQ does not dare call an election. A few months ago, Bloc Quebecois members were all set to run as candidates in a provincial election. Now, not a single one of them is interested in doing it, because they fear that Quebecers may be tired of hearing the same old speeches after 20, 25 or 30 years.

Quebecers want reconciliation. They are increasingly aware that they co-own a large continent. The role of the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord is to do everything possible so that the Canadian government will help us come out of isolation. It is not PQ members who have looked after the regions the most.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps no other bill passed in this place, outside of a bill dealing with personal income taxes, will directly affect Canadians as much as Bill C-55.

Yesterday in the House the member for Scarborough--Rouge River took the opportunity to delve into debate and voice his concern on a number of issues. A couple of those issues had a real resonance for members of parliament on the opposition benches and, I suspect, for members of the government. The essence of what member said was that the bill should not go to the transport committee.

The member for Scarborough--Rouge River said, and I quote:

It is certainly not out of any disrespect for their abilities on the transport committee, but it appears clear that the bulk of the bill does not involve mainline transportation issues.

I would go so far as to question the theory that somehow a bill of this magnitude should be focused into a narrow special interest group on a transport committee. I would be very leery if many of them have even appeared on debate at second reading stage.

Second reading of any bill in the House before it goes to committee is absolutely the most important reading of legislation. This is the opportunity for debate and for questions and answers. Second reading stage is when members suggest changes that should be made to any piece of legislation and the government has time to implement them or committee members have time to take them to committee in the form of amendments.

One of the reasons and certainly the most valid reason that Bill C-55 should not go to the transport committee is because it involves too many other committees. The bill affects the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Department of Health Act, the Food and Drugs Act, the Hazardous Products Act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act, the Pest Control Products Act, the Quarantine Act, the Radiation Emitting Devices Act, the Canada Shipping Act and the Canada Shipping Act, 2001.

This legislation covers an extremely wide spectrum of government agencies and laws. Every Liberal member of parliament and indeed every member of the committee should be questioning the government's motives. They should not indulge in some type of fantasy that the transport committee will be enough to deal with the complexities of the legislation.

Bill C-55 is very controversial legislation that has been withdrawn, reintroduced and has members on all sides of the House divided. Which committee does the Prime Minister feel will offer the path of least resistance?

All of us should feel a little disappointed. The contempt and disregard in which those around the Liberal cabinet table hold committees is obvious. Committees are capable of doing the real work that needs to be done in the House if they are allowed to do their job.

The member also talked of partisan rhetoric. He said that it was all part of the job. We in the Progressive Conservative Party agree with him and his suggestion. Should he or any members of cabinet be able to convince the government that it should listen to its backbenchers this time and send the bill to the appropriate committees, they would have our full support.

This is not some type of backbench fantasy that perhaps some Liberal members of parliament are having that I want to recognize. They have an opportunity to shape the legislation. It needs to be shaped and desperately needs to be changed.

The government has had other opportunities in bills like Bill C-68. It has had opportunities with bills that dealt with compensation for hepatitis C victims. There have been opportunities on legislation on SARA, the species at risk bill. It has had opportunities to change legislation on bills such as the prevention of cruelty to animals bill. The reality is that the government has not used those opportunities. It talks.

We can all read the papers, which state that there is a backbench revolt in the Liberal Party, that the rural members have finally found the intestinal fortitude to start up on their hind legs and vote against the government. I would suggest to Canadians that they check the voting record. I used to keep sheep and I know a little bit about sheep. When one sheep leads, the rest of the sheep follow. I would suggest that Canadians check the record. It is very plain to see.

I believe that the suggestion that a special legislative committee be constructed and comprised of some individuals from the transport committee and some from the justice committee would receive support from all opposition parties. In fact, I would go one step further and I would suggest that members from each of the committees affected by the bill should be formed into a special committee to deal with this special piece of legislation. It would be a novel thought because it would actually give democracy a chance.

Moving on with this discussion, in the wake of the tragic events of last September it was understandable that legislation on the drawing board would go to extreme measures, but the arbitrariness of the decision making process is palpable. Putting so much power in the hands of ministers does nothing to benefit Canadians. We have interim orders, orders made by a minister alone without parliamentary approval, to remain secret for 23 days. Let me say that again: without parliamentary approval. The orders can be in effect for 45 days without any cabinet approval whatsoever. As well, unless specified in the order, the order can be in effect for a year and if the minister so chooses it can be renewed for at least another year. That is two years.

The changes from Bill C-42, a bill that very few members of parliament were supportive of, are extremely slight. Once again, parliament and the public are relegated to a back seat. The changes to the National Defence Act are a perfect example. We have a minister who in the past has been less than forthright with the public and parliament, his own party, his caucus and even his leader. He takes three briefings to get up to speed and the Prime Minister wants him to have the ability to declare, unchecked and unfettered, a controlled access military zone anywhere in Canada. I do not think so. Surely this is a mistake. Surely we are not going to reward incompetence.

Make no mistake about it. Under this legislation the government can drive a tank onto any street corner in Canada and, at the discretion of the minister of defence, call it a military secured zone. It is shocking. Under proposed paragraph 260.1(1)(b), on controlled access military zones, there is some question as to what the government means by property. Is this real property as in real estate, or property in terms of equipment, such as the tank that I suggested could be driven onto any street corner in the country? I would suggest that for those who want to read the bill closely, the answer comes in proposed subsection 260.1(3) with the designation of the nature of the zone. It states:

A controlled access military zone may consist of an area of land or water, a portion of airspace, or a structure or part of one, surrounding a thing referred to in subsection (1) or including it, whether the zone designated is fixed or moves with that thing.

That is any piece of military hardware. Proposed subsection 260.1(3) continues:

The zone automatically includes all corresponding airspace above, and water and land below, the earth's surface.

The key here is “or moves with that thing”.

If the nature of the legislation were to create these zones in or around areas with permanent structures not designated as military bases, there would be no need for clarification of this type. This gives the minister the ability to designate a controlled military access zone around any piece of military property he feels necessary, and as the equipment moves through an area, so goes the zone. Canadians work too long and too hard for everything they own in this country. The fact that a minister at the stroke of a pen can negate that takes away the old adage that a person's home is his castle.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity today to enter into the debate on the amendment to Bill C-55. I understand it is the nature of the motion to have the bill referred not just to the transport committee but to the justice committee. I think the NDP caucus is generally in support of that idea because no one has told us to our satisfaction why such a broad sweeping, omnibus piece of legislation should have arrived before the transport committee anyway. No one has been able to tell us how a bill that changes 19 different statutes and covers 9 different ministerial jurisdictions is it to be referred to the transport committee. Many MPs have this question.

Even though I can support the Alliance amendment, I would go further and ask why this bill is not divided up into manageable sized pieces and distributed to the committees of the nine different ministerial portfolios that it affects. The only reason given by the government was that it was in the interest of expediency. It wants it treated as an omnibus bill rather than go through the more long and drawn out process of actually going to the standing committees that have jurisdiction over that area. I do not accept that there is any urgency to fast track Bill C-55.

If in fact Bill C-55 finds its origins in some terrible emergency, which it does, the tragic events of 9/11, that urgency no longer exists. If the government is using the fact that it is an urgent situation to justify fast tracking this bill, why did it languish for four long months between its previous incarnation and its current incarnation? Why was it not an urgent emergency after Bill C-42 was withdrawn because it was hastily thrown together? Why did four months pass before we even saw Bill C-55 and now it has become urgent to ram it through?

Canadians have reservations about the bill because it seeks to diminish the basic human rights and freedoms by which Canadians define themselves as Canadians. It is serious business.

I am not trying to sound the alarm that something subversive is going on, that big brother is trying to change our lives, but these measures do impact on the basic privacy freedoms that Canadians enjoy, and Canadians deserve to know about them.

I would argue that the bill should not be fast tracked not to give more members of parliament chances to make long winded, boring speeches but the period of time to engage Canadians in the debate. If the government has its way, the bill will be rammed through the House. Canadians will not even know because, frankly, they do not pay daily attention to what we are doing here. Canadians will not learn about it until it is too late. Canadians should be allowed to consult Canadians, to engage Canadians in this fundamental question of whether they are willing to sacrifice some of their personal freedoms in exchange for national security issues. Until we can ask Canadians that question there should be no fast tracking of Bill C-55.

We know Bill C-42 enhanced a number of powers of the various enforcement agencies. Bill C-55 is not just a cleaned up version of Bill C-42. Bill C-55 introduces brand new measures that require and call for a fulsome debate and the engagement of Canadians.

I will start with the point that I am very critical of this thinly veiled attempt to, I believe, sell Canadians a Trojan horse, a whole package of goods. As I said, 19 statutes will be amended by the bill and all of it will wind up before the 15 members of the Standing Committee on Transport and Government Operations.

Statutes like the criminal code are being amended. Why will the justice committee not deal with the criminal code amendments?

The health act is being amended by this omnibus bill, Bill C-55. Should that not be properly before the Standing Committee on Health? The Export and Import Permits Act should go to the foreign affairs committee. Surely the party critics who sit on the foreign affairs committee deserve the opportunity to study the bill clause by clause. They will not have that opportunity.

All opposition parties select specific individuals with special expertise to be their representatives on various committees. Our expert on health will not have the opportunity to review Bill C-55 because it will not go to the health committee.

There are all kinds of good reasons for Canadians to be apprehensive about such a broad and sweeping piece of legislation that could change the very way we conduct ourselves in the country. By the time the government rams it through the House Canadians will not even notice unless they are the type of people who watch CPAC daily, and I do not think most Canadians are.

I do not want to accuse the government of trying to slip something by or imply that this is a Trojan horse, although I have heard the term used. However I will say, without any fear of contradiction and without overstating the case, that Bill C-55 is a ministerial power grab. There is no question in my mind that it enhances executive authority and diminishes parliamentary oversight. That should be a concern because it is a trend we have noticed. In the few short years that I have been a member of parliament it has become a running motif. It is a theme that we see developing in just about every piece of legislation tabled in the House. We see an enhanced executive authority and diminished opportunity for parliament to have any say.

This shift of power is an insidious thing. It has been happening slowly. It is like wearing away the concept that most Canadians have of parliament. Canadians may even see parliament through rose coloured glasses. It is one of the greatest democracies in the world and they like to believe that their members of parliament are allowed to debate issues and even influence bills.

However when we strip away the ability for elected members of parliament to have true contact and true participation in the development of legislation, we really have the executive making the laws in the country and very little opportunity for the rest of the members of parliament, who were freely elected as well, to have any input.

We are very critical. We believe, if nothing else, Bill C-55 is deliberately designed, not by accident but by design, to increase ministerial power. It is a power grab. It enhances executive authority and it diminishes parliamentary oversight. I am mostly concerned about that and Canadians should be concerned.

I think Canadians are catching on to the debate. I wish there was more time so we could engage more Canadians but they can read the critical statements made by the office of the privacy commissioner. Granted, there is an argument to be made that perhaps the office of the privacy commissioner should really be making its comments to parliament and not to a media scrum, but he uses words like totalitarian which is harsh and extreme language. In fact he states things more strongly than even I would but he warns people that this is a dramatic expansion of police powers.

I would argue that the police forces in Canada already have expansive and adequate powers. The RCMP, CSIS and our customs agents and the people who protect our well-being do have the tools they need to protect Canadians. Arguably, those rules or tools could be honed, modified or sharpened, but the privacy commissioner points out that this is a dramatic expansion of police powers.

We have to be cautious when we weigh personal freedoms with legislation that is regulatory. We want to err on the side of caution, which is certainly one of the fundamental tenets of any kind of legislation when we are dealing with a free and open society like Canada.

The NDP caucus will not be voting in support of Bill C-55. We do support the amendment that it should go to the justice committee, but we believe Bill C-55 has in it inherent flaws that any of the goodwill or good intentions that the government may have had are vastly overshadowed by the possible danger of diminishing basic human rights and freedoms in the country. We are not prepared to go that far at this time.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a few days ago, on April 17 to be more precise, several members of this House celebrated, their hands to their hearts, not what is referred to in Quebec as the result of the night of the long knives, not what is called the unilateral patriation of the Constitution--since they were trying to keep away from less unifying subjects--but rather the anniversary of the charter of rights and freedoms.

They told us how the charter of rights and freedoms has changed the face of Canada and made its citizens feel like they were living in a democracy where their fundamental rights would be protected by a legal document enshrined in the Constitution.

The hon. member for Frontenac--Mégantic told us that the charter of rights and freedoms is what defines his identity, his beliefs and the values he holds dear. The member for St. Paul's argued the same day that the fundamental rights of Canadians are defined in that same charter of rights and freedoms. Also on the issue of the charter, the ineffable President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs stated, and I quote, “The charter will protect their rights”--meaning the rights of all Canadians--“in the future, as it has for the past 20 years”. Funny how the future does not always last all that long.

What are we debating today? We are debating Bill C-55. We most certainly could have celebrated Bill C-55. In these times where our fellow citizens are increasingly uncertain, cynical and losing interest in politics, Bill C-55 could very well have been an occasion to celebrate—to celebrate the fact that the government had finally stopped being arrogant, shown some modesty and listened to the many voices that spoke out against the previous safety bill, Bill C-42, which the government chose to withdraw, voices that did not come only from elected representatives here in parliament, but also from the general public as well.

That is why we could have been proud. We could have celebrated the fact that the government had responded to the expectations and concerns expressed by the public. And yet, what do we have before us? A bill, Bill C-55, entitled an act to amend certain Acts of Canada, and to enact measures for implementing the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, in order to enhance public safety. This is a wordy title if I ever have seen one. All this to say that, in the end, this title is just camouflage for a bill which, for all intents and purposes, is almost identical to Bill C-42.

Of course, a few cosmetic changes were made, but the fact remains that this bill, like its predecessor, seriously threatens the very rights and freedoms that we or, should I say, that our colleagues from other political parties celebrated, with their hand on their heart, on April 17.

I cannot help but remind members of what privacy commissioner George Radwanski said regarding Bill C-55, which is before the House today. In the May 2 issue of La Presse he was quoted as saying:

—the Chrétien government new anti-terrorism bill smacks of practices similar to those that exist in totalitarian states—

That is quite a statement. We are talking about Canada. We are talking about a bill which, according to the privacy commissioner, is aimed at implementing practices that existed in totalitarian states.

And again, still in yesterday's issue of La Presse : “—these ‘exceptional measures’” provided for in Bill C-55 are “far from being tools to fight terrorism—”

This is serious because this bill is supposed to provide us with additional tools to fight terrorism. The privacy commissioner added that:

—these “exceptional” measures, far from being tools to fight terrorism, are really “a dramatic expansion of privacy-invasive police powers without explanation or justification as to its necessity”.

In an article published in today's issue of Le Soleil , Mr. Radwanski is quoted as saying:

The precedent set by section 4.82 could open the door, in principle, to practices similar to those that exist in totalitarian societies where police routinely board trains or establish roadblocks to check identification papers.

This is cause for great concern. It would appear that in the House only the opposition is worried by what the privacy commissioner is reported to have said.

Indeed, yesterday, the member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot had the nerve to grandstand and rise on a point of privilege to complain that the privacy commissioner had not fulfilled his obligation, first, by not advising the House of the comments he made regarding Bill C-55.

The autocratic tendency of the government goes as far as trying to muzzle officers of the House to prevent them from saying what has to be said about the troubling nature of some pieces of legislation put forward by this government.

We are getting increasingly concerned by repeated comments of this kind on the part of members of this House. We have every reason to be perplexed, to say the least.

Since when do we ask House appointed officers, such as the auditor general or the chief electoral officer, to report to this House each time they express themselves publicly, when they are interviewed by the media, for example?

On the face of it, the arguments made by our colleague from Ancaster--Dundas--Flamborough--Aldershot are absolutely pointless and fallacious, and we must refute them without the slightest hesitation.

Obviously, I could have dwelt on the main concerns, on the controlled access military zones, about which my colleague from Laval--Centre spoke at length this morning, on the interim orders, on the fact that the RCMP and CSIS can obtain personal information on passengers from the air carriers.

Needless to say, we are very disappointed with this bill. We were very happy that the government listened to the Bloc Quebecois, among others, and withdrew the despicable Bill C-42, but we are greatly disappointed to see that the government withdrew it only to bring it back under another guise, although its substance is very similar if not identical.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak as another New Democrat in opposition to Bill C-55 that is being debated today.

I want to refer to comments made by our transport critic, the hon. member for Churchill. It was yesterday when, in describing the effects and impacts of the bill, she correctly pointed out that the power Bill C-55 confers, contrary to what the government is putting forward to the public, on individual cabinet ministers and the government to exercise in an environment of secrecy is, as she said, under the cloak of national security.

This gets to the core of what the bill is about. We saw a huge outcry from the public regarding the previous bill, Bill C-42, because Canadians understood that the bill had little to do with national security, and it had everything to do with a massive infringement on the civil liberties and rights of Canadians. I can say that those of us in the NDP who have had an opportunity to review this latest version, the second try of the government with its introduction of Bill C-55, have come to the same conclusion.

The bill is being put forward in parliament under the cloak of national security, yet it is a bill that must be examined carefully line by line. When we read it we understand the massive power contained in the bill which can be used by individual ministers, by cabinet and by the federal government. The NDP wants to sent out a warning to alert Canadians that Bill C-55 fundamentally differs very little from the original bill, Bill C-42.

For that reason we are standing in opposition to the bill as it goes through the House and committee. We will be calling upon Canadians to stand and assert their political and civil rights to make it clear that the bill is completely unacceptable.

That is not just the opinion of the New Democratic Party. It is also the opinion of a growing number of people who, in examining the bill, are realizing that its impact on our democratic society is something that we should be terribly concerned about.

I read a news release from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. This is a person and an office that was established by parliament to protect the privacy of Canadians, to create and to look at the right balance between the need for government to bring in legislation to protect the public interest and the need to protect individual privacy rights.

Government members in particular should be taking note of what the office of the privacy commissioner had to say. In his press release he zeroed in on one section of the bill, section 4.82. These are the provisions that would allow the RCMP and CSIS unrestricted access to the personal information of all Canadian air travellers on flights within Canada as well as on international routes.

The commissioner's concern was that the provision in the bill would fundamentally take away the important privacy right of Canadians with regard to police and other agents as they go about their day to day lives, including travel. The press release stated:

In Canada, it is well established that individuals do not have to identify themselves to police unless they are being arrested or unless they are carrying out a licensed activity such as driving...Empowering the RCMP to obtain and scan passenger lists in search of anyone subject to an outstanding warrant for any offense punishable by imprisonment of five years or more has no apparent connection to the purported anti-terrorism purpose of Bill C-55. It appears, rather, to be a dramatic expansion of privacy-invasive police powers without explanation or justification as to its necessity.

Are government members paying attention to this? Are they hearing what the privacy commissioner had to say? He said the bill would allow officials to go into air traveller lists, but where would it stop? Would we then be looking at train travellers, bus travellers or even someone renting a car?

I felt terribly concerned when I read the privacy commissioner's press release. This person is in office in an official capacity to uphold the privacy rights of Canadians. Bill C-55 would trample on those privacy rights. We must question the government, on what basis is the bill being put forward?

Our transport critic and other members of the House have argued forcefully that the government already has at its disposal any measure of legislation, tools that already exist, to deal with legitimate national security concerns. We must ask why the bill is being brought in? Why has the government not received the message from Canadians, including legal experts, international law experts or civil libertarians? Why has the government not understood that what it is about to do is a complete violation of democratic principles established in this country.

This kind of pervasive, military and police intrusion into civil society is something that is creeping along every day. In my own riding in East Vancouver, in the downtown east side, police are about to install surveillance cameras in public locations to watch what is going on on the streets. The same privacy commissioner has criticized that too as an invasion of privacy.

I see these issues being linked. I see it as my responsibility as one member of parliament along with my colleagues in the New Democratic Party to say that we should be terribly concerned about these invasions into the privacy of Canadians.

Even though the government claims that the language in Bill C-55 has been softened there are still very significant provisions that would allow the establishment of military zones when equipment is brought in. It would still allow the potential of vast abuse when international gatherings are being held.

If a foreign leader were to bring in military personnel as we saw during APEC, would it be on that basis that the provisions of the bill could suddenly come into effect? We saw that happen in Vancouver when the president of Indonesia came here. He brought his own folks with him toting guns. Is it on that basis that the provisions of the bill could suddenly come into effect and before we know it a peaceful civil protest could be turned into a military zone, closed down, censored and people arrested?

Those are some of the concerns that the NDP have. We will continue to oppose the bill because we see it as a dangerous bill. It is a violation of our fundamental civil liberties, and an invasion into the privacy of Canadians. Bill C-55 would undermine the democratic foundation that we in the House are elected to protect.

[Val Meredith, Canadian Alliance, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it shows us how seriously the government takes the legislation. It took 20 minutes to get enough of its members in the House to begin parliament. I even question whether there are enough members in here at the present time.

The government introduced the legislation as an anti-terrorism bill in response to September 11. I would argue that the bill is anything but a bill that deals with terrorism.

In his speech on Bill C-42, the minister said the bill was another important step in the fight against terrorism. In the omnibus bill the only common theme, which omnibus bills are supposed to have, was that it centralized the power in the hands of the executive branch of government with little or no parliamentary review. Bill C-55 remains a ministerial power grab.

The Minister of Transport in November 2001, in response to a question by the member from Fraser Valley, said:

When there is a localized one time emergency ministers need to act quickly. That is what happened on September 11. Had there been further terrorist attacks and the country was in a state of apprehension then obviously the Emergencies Act would have been invoked.

This question has to be asked. If there was legislation that allowed the ministers to respond in kind at that time, why do they need this legislation today? I would argue that they want to enhance the powers of the minister and take it out of the hands of parliament.

The amendments that Bill C-55 brings to bear are not exact. It introduces two new security measures. One is about unruly passengers or air rage, and the opposition thinks the measures are a good thing. The other is the requirement of air carriers to provide information on their passenger manifests to various departments.

The difference between the old bill, Bill C-42, and the new one, Bill C-55, is that Bill C-55 is very specific about how this is to be handled. In the old bill the minister was given the discretion through regulations on how to handle this.

Before the Christmas break the transportation committee produced an excellent report on how to handle airline security. It balanced all the details of implementing the system with some discretion for the minister to act. Instead, the current Minister of Transport wants carte blanche to do whatever he wants to do and to be the sole authority on security measures.

It is interesting that the Liberal backbenchers seem quite willing to allow the executive branch of parliament, the cabinet, to take away their ability to be involved.

Another change from Bill C-42 is with regard to the Immigration Act. The new bill deletes parts from the previous bill which referred to the Immigration Act. In Bill C-42 the government introduced amendments to the Immigration Act that it had just put into place through Bill C-11 but which had not been implemented. Bill C-42 would have repealed Bill C-11 changes such as a 72 hour time limit on referrals and a 90 day limit on processing time which would have severely curtailed the appeals process. Bill C-42 removed that.

In February 2001 we had proposals of changes to Bill C-11. In November 2001 we had the elimination of those proposed changes. Now in April 2002, we are now getting rid of the proposed changes to Bill C-11 that would have been done in February. It is no wonder that Canadians have little or no faith in the immigration department, the minister and the Immigration Act. Does anybody over there on the government side know what is going on with the Immigration Act?

Other changes are proposed for the National Defence Act. Some are good, some are bad and some are questionable. The proposed inclusion of armed conflict in the definition of emergency, which already includes insurrection, riot, invasion and war, is presumably meant to ensure that the events of September 11 would be officially designated as an emergency. However it is questionable whether the term armed conflict appropriately defines the terrorist acts of September 11, or a biological or chemical attack, or even a major cyber attack on our computer networks. Rather the government should specifically include terrorism in the definition of an emergency.

The opposition supports job protection for officers and non-commissioned members of our reserve forces. We have been calling for such protection for years however we are concerned that this job protection is only limited to emergencies. What does this mean for the reservists that are called out for peacekeeping duties? Are they not afforded any job protection?

We are also concerned about the creation of controlled access military zones. The government claimed under Bill C-42 and again under Bill C-55 that these controlled access military zones would only protect military equipment and personnel and would not be used to battle public demonstrations. However by changing the section from how it was drafted in Bill C-42 to how it has been drafted now, the government is admitting that these military security zones that were mentioned in Bill C-42 were intended to be used against legitimate protest groups despite the minister's assertions to the contrary.

Since we could not trust the minister then, why would he think that we would trust him now not to be using these special provisions against public demonstrations? It would appear that these measures are designed for protesters and those engaging in civil disobedience, not terrorists.

Why do I come to that conclusion? We must look at the example the minister of defence used, which was the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen by the al-Qaeda in October 2000 where a boat full of explosives was used against the side of a military ship. What would the government do in this legislation? It would use some force and fine the terrorists $1,000. What kind of deterrent is that to terrorists, to fine them $1,000?

In order to fight terrorists we must use lethal force. We do not fine them $1,000 and slap them on the hand. That is why it is clear to me that this is not anti-terrorism legislation. This is to be used against civil disobedience. If the government were to do that, that is fine with me, but it should be upfront, honest and open to the public and say that is what it is attempting to do and not hide it.

We have a problem with the interim orders giving that kind of overwhelming authority to cabinet. We are upset there is no parliamentary oversight and review. That is necessary to hold the government and the executive branch accountable.

I must say this is another attempt by the government to take the responsibility out of the hands of parliament and place it in the hands of cabinet. The government is not willing to allow these interim orders to go before a cabinet committee. It only requires four cabinet ministers to agree. That should not be difficult. It has a hard time getting its members here, but surely it is not that hard to get four cabinet ministers to sit down with legislation that supposedly is designed to fight terrorism. One really has to question the intent.

Our party is quite apt to say that the legislation should be split. That is what this amendment is all about. Let us take the good parts of the legislation, deal with them and forget this thing about it being anti-terrorism. That is not what the bill is all about.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, rising to speak to Bill C-55 does not require one to redefine in detail the context we find ourselves in since September 11, since the impact of those attacks has been discussed more than once, along with the steps to be taken to prevent, or at least deal with, such events.

The Bloc Quebecois has, moreover, proposed some clear paths toward solutions that would eliminate one of the most fertile grounds for terrorism: the abject poverty in which millions live in this world. We have moreover agreed that it was also important to protect our territory from any possibility of attack. Public safety must be ensured through peactical measures and clearly defined legislation that has been the object of informed debate.

We must, however, take care not to go to the opposite extreme and enact legislation with potential negative impact on the rights and freedoms of those we wish to protect, under the guise of fighting terrorism. We do not have to go far back in time to recall the late unlamented Bill C-42, so criticized for its negative effects on fundamental rights and freedoms.

At the time, the government was busy boasting right and left of what an ardent promoter of public security it was, rejecting the criticisms that were being made from this side of the House. Now here we are again, starting off a new debate on a similar bill, although a few changes have been made.

Why are we having this new debate? Simply because the public, which is not stupid, condemned, like the Bloc Quebecois, Bill C-42, since it violated civil liberties and made us fear the worst by bringing back bad memories, including what happened in 1970 with the War Measures Act. So, the government had no choice but to recognize that the public's judgment can make the Liberals blush.

The bill now before us is a new version of Bill C-42. How is Bill C-55 different? Is it an improved version? These are two fundamental questions that must be answered.

First, in what way is it different? Unfortunately, there is very little difference. In the first draft of this bill, because it is certainly appropriate to call Bill C-42 a draft, great power was given to a single person, namely the Minister of National Defence.

How could the government put such power in the hands of a single person, this at a time when the authority delegated to the executive branch is being questioned, at a time when we are asking the legislative branch to have more of a say in the decision making process? The situation is all the more alarming because the decision to suspend people's fundamental rights will be based on the minister's judgment.

A lot of things have happened since Bill C-42 was introduced. Indeed, we were able to witness the very high degree of judgment of the Minister of National Defence, who omitted to inform the Prime Minister of the capture of Afghan prisoners and their handing over to the Americans. Everyone still clearly remembers the uproar created in this House by this whole story. Under Bill C-55, it is that same person who would have control over our rights and freedoms. Mr. Speaker, if you feel a chill running down your spine do not worry, it is not the flu; you are perfectly normal, you are a person of judgment.

Just think about this for a moment. This minister can, all alone, decide to create controlled access military zones and determine their dimensions. If he deems it appropriate to keep the whole thing secret, he also has the power to do so. It is legitimate to hope that the criteria under which he would make all these decisions are well defined and specified in the legislation, but this is not the case at all.

The bill simply says that the minister must base his decisions on what he believes is reasonably necessary. Could the wording be any more discretionary? I doubt it. Not only are we talking about judgment, which is hardly objective or reassuring, but then on top of that is says reasonably necessary.

Allow to me raise the following question: what does reasonably necessary really mean? How can such a qualifier restrict and limit a minister's actions?

I, for example, may find it reasonably necessary to remove these terms from the bill and define specific restrictions on the minister. I may also believe that it is reasonably necessary, given that we live in a representative democracy, for parliament to be consulted prior to proposing such measures. Will my interpretation be similar to that of the minister's? The answer is obvious.

When it comes to controlled access military zones, the minister does not need the approval of the provincial government. Which includes, obviously, all of the consequences of this power. Should this information be made public? No, not really, the government will tell us. How else are we supposed to react, other than to be suspicious and remain vigilant about this situation that, incidentally, seems to have survived the demise of Bill C-42 only to resurface again in Bill C-55.

Another issue related to these famous military zones that has left us perplexed is the lack of recourse before the courts for persons wronged by a controlled access military zone. For those who are wronged by the creation of such a zone, there is no recourse available, even if the government claims otherwise. The bill states clearly, and I quote:

260.1 (14) No action for loss, damage or injury lies by reason only of the designation of a controlled access military zone or the implementation of measures to enforce the designation.

If the designation of a military zone violate a person's rights in any way, and causes this person to be wronged, there is no legal recourse available to them. What is more, the following subsection stipulates:

(15) Any person who suffers loss, damage or injury by reason of the exercise of any of the powers conferred by this section shall be compensated from the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

How lovely. It is the Consolidated Revenue Fund that will determine the compensation I am owed.

This should give us pause. Why? Because we have made the decision to live under the rule of law. What has now become of this principle? With a stroke of its electronic pen, the government decides to change things on us? In certain situations, the rule of law prevails, while in others, we just have to put up and shut up if we are wronged?

Members will recall that it was not so long ago that the government was proudly commemorating the 20th anniversary of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They will also recall that it neglected to mention the unilateral patriation of the constitution, probably not thinking it was reasonably necessary. Now, just a few dark nights and one brief burst of sunshine later, this same government is prepared to set aside these rights and freedoms in the name of the fight against terrorism. How is it that while, on the one hand, the Liberal government is proudly extolling the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, on the other, it is crushing those same rights and there is nothing to stop it? A bit of consistency would do this government a lot of good, but perhaps we are dreaming in colour.

Mr. Speaker, if the designation of a zone has harmed you in some way, that will be just too bad for you. But you can take comfort in the fact that the maximum length of time for which such a zone may be designated is two years. Members will admit that that is a bit long. Here again, the government will tell you that there is no use claiming that your rights and freedoms have been violated and that, wonder of wonders, we live in a country which operates under the rule of law.

The bill has carefully retained the provisions allowing various ministers to make interim orders. However, there is a slight difference which is worth pointing out. The initial duration of interim orders has gone from 90 to 45 days. Then, orders will have to be tabled in each house of parliament on any of the first 15 days on which that house is sitting after the interim order is made. So far, so good. But then we find out the real nature of these interim orders. It is clearly set out in subsection (4) that an interim order is exempt from the application of section 3 of the Statutory Instruments Act. In plain language, this means that the interim order does not have to be consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights.

Does that not prove that this government is seeking the power to restrict our rights and freedoms with total impunity? What we fear and what was deliberately included in this bill in order to set aside the most important elements of our democracy is the loss of total respect for the rights and freedoms of every citizen.

Some were pretty harsh in criticizing Bill C-55, including the privacy commissioner. He stated clearly that the government drew its inspiration from practices commonly used by totalitarian states. The commissioner did not even give this new antiterrorist legislation a passing grade. It is not very good for a supposedly liberal government, particularly since it cannot label as partisan the comments made by the privacy commissioner.

I have other interesting comments, but I will pass them on to my colleagues, who may be able to use them.

In closing, at the beginning of my speech, I mentioned two questions. The first one was: is Bill C-55 different? The answer is no. To some extent, it is even worse. The second question was: has it been improved? Obviously, the new bill does not meet our expectations nor does it allay our fears.

In these times where respect for each and every individual is more essential than ever, we cannot tolerate that fundamental rights and freedoms be taken away on the grounds that we are trying to fight terrorism. The very people whom we want to protect from terrorism must also be protected from abuse. Nothing leads us to believe that this would be the case, should Bill C-55 go through.

Business of the House

[John O'Reilly, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to Bill C-55. I had been prepared to speak to Bill C-42 at one time. I am pleased the bill has been withdrawn, changed and critiqued.

I will take this opportunity to go over what the Minister of National Defence stated today and what we believe to be significant improvements in the bill. Recent events continue to show that the security environment in Canada has changed significantly. The measures contained in Bill C-55 would improve the ability of the Canadian forces to protect Canadians and respond to the new threats.

It is clear that the government has listened to Canadians in terms of what they wanted changed. The government has also listened carefully not only to its own caucus and backbench but to the opposition. The new public safety act, 2002 has taken into account the concerns expressed about the previous Bill C-42. When opposition members study the new bill they will realize it is an improvement and that it tries to address the problems.

I will deal specifically with the amendments to the National Defence Act. They are a logical continuation of the amendments contained in the Anti-terrorism Act which received royal assent in December 2001. Sober second thought has prevailed and we now have time to look at the terrorist threat and highlight some of the changes.

One of the amendments deals with controlled military access zones. It is the amendment everyone is trying to read something into whether it is there or not. It would replace military security zones with controlled access military zones. The new zones would be limited to the protection of Canadian forces and visiting forces personnel or property. Contrary to what other members have said, the zones would be strictly for the protection of our military and the military of our allies. They are not intended and would not be used for other purposes, plain and simple. They would be temporary. Any extension of a designated zone for more than a year would require the approval of governor in council.

After the USS Cole was attacked by terrorists in a harbour in Yemen I came to the conclusion that there was no control. I could also point to a recent visit to Halifax harbour by an American aircraft carrier which was so big it had to stay in the outer harbour. Let us imagine that. The boat was 28 storeys high. Its landing surface was four and a half acres. It was a huge piece of military equipment creating a tourist attraction in itself.

If we allow huge military craft and vast numbers of personnel into our harbours, whether on the west coast or the east coast, they must be protected. We must allow the designation of zones to protect them. It is only prudent. We do not have that now. We have it in civil law but not military law. That is important.

Bill C-55 also contains amendments for notification and publication of the designation of zones. This would make Canada a more reliable international partner and at the same time address concerns about the extent to which the zones could be used for non-military purposes. Obviously we are talking about military purposes and terrorist activity. The zones would protect visiting aircraft whether at an air show in Trenton, a harbour in Halifax or Cold Lake, Alberta. When people visiting from other countries want to be assured they have protection we must be able to offer it whether it is in military or civilian areas.

The second part of the bill relating to the military would improve on the amendments in Bill C-42 regarding the ability of Canadian forces to protect their computer systems and networks and the data they contain. The proposed amendments are now consistent with the amendments contained in Bill C-36 for other government agencies. We should keep in mind that the Department of National Defence operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week in many countries of the world and therefore it must be protected during that time.

Certainly that means there are limits. The Department of National Defence would only interpret communications that would prevent harmful, unauthorized use or interference with DND and CF computer systems and networks and the data they contain. It is vital we protect it.

A key role of these systems and the networks is the daily operation of the Canadian forces anywhere in the world in conjunction with our allies. Because of the fact that these systems and networks are targeted by our enemies and hackers, they require the Canadian forces to have the ability to protect these systems 24 hours a day, seven days a week anywhere in the world. The amendment would allow that. It is a fairly simple amendment.

The third part is the reserve military judges panel. The amendment contained in Bill C-55, modified from Bill C-42, would establish a reserve military judges panel. This panel would provide the chief military judge with access to appropriately qualified reserve force officers who have previously performed military judicial duties. It would also provide the military judiciary with the necessary flexibility to meet any increased demands placed on the military justice system. They can be quite relevant.

It is important that Bill C-55 adds the word voluntary in relation to a panel member ceasing to be an officer of the reserves. This change would enhance institutional independence by ensuring that a panel member who involuntarily ceases to be an officer of the reserves would only have his or her name removed from the panel after a recommendation has been made by an inquiry committee.

The government has made a clear and concise commitment to fight terrorism and protect the safety and security of Canadians. The areas I touched on further enhance the ability of the Government of Canada, the Department of National Defence and the Canadian forces to protect Canadians from terrorism while ensuring the rights and privacy of individuals.

I encourage all members to support the bill, to get it into committee and ask questions. That is where committee work will come into play, when expert witnesses are called and people are allowed to ask questions.

Members previously touched on compensation. I know the right to sue would be withheld, but anyone suffering loss or damage as a result of a controlled access military zone would be compensated from the consolidated revenue fund.

I believe the enforcement of controlled military zones would involve a range of items such as erecting fences or barriers and the removal of unauthorized persons from controlled access military zones. Any person who is removed from a controlled zone would be turned over to the appropriate civil authorities, be tried in a civilian court, and if charges were laid be entitled to all due process under civilian law. Section 288 of part eight within Bill C-55 offers trial by civil courts.

Most of the concerns of the members have been summed up. I am anxious to see the bill discussed in committee, for all members to have input into it, to bring expert witnesses forward to explain every portion of it and to make sure that it is examined with a fine toothed comb to ensure everything that is of concern to members will be looked after.

[Grant McNally, Canadian Alliance, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as we near the end of debate today on Bill C-55 quite a bit has been said about the bill by members on the government and opposition sides. Some good points have been made in debate. I will highlight some of the points made by both opposition and government members on this important topic.

The minister of defence gave a speech earlier which outlined the whole issue of security zones. He said the legislation would take care of itself and that we would not have to worry about the government using parts of it to extend military zones over areas like Kananaskis or whatnot. However there is concern about the motivations and intent of the minister.

When the legislation is in place it will be in place. It will not matter what the minister has said about his motivations. The legislation would give discretionary powers to him and other ministers. No matter how much he tells us the powers would never be used in a certain way they could well be used in such a manner. It could happen with the current minister, a different minister or under a future government.

Once we put a piece of legislation in place it is there until amended or repealed. We therefore need to be careful. We need to look at legislation not through the lens of our own political parties but in terms of what is best for the country. Political parties have differing opinions but even within parties there are variances of opinion about pieces of legislation. Bill C-55 is an example. We have heard government members give good speeches about some of the concerns with regard to the bill.

I would refer members to the speech given by our hon. colleague from Mount Royal. He gave a good speech outlining many of the concerns individuals have with this piece of legislation. I will point out some of the concerns as well. I mentioned them in a question to my hon. colleague the NDP House leader.

One concern is the issue of controlled access military zones. Under clause 74 dealing with proposed section 260.1 of the National Defence Act, Bill C-55 explains how the chief of defence staff may designate a controlled access military zone in Canada in relation to a defence establishment, a property, a vessel or an aircraft. It goes on to explain what could be designated as such. My hon. colleague from Yukon referred to this as well.

Under Bill C-55 proposed subsection 260.1(4) of the National Defence Act reads:

The dimensions of a controlled access military zone may not be greater than is reasonably necessary to ensure the safety or security of any person, thing or property for which the zone is designated.

A great deal of discretion would be given with regard to this. Others have mentioned this, including the Liberal government member from Mount Royal. It could be used to extend controlled military zones to areas like Kananaskis. The minister tells us this could not happen but the clauses in the bill would give the minister the ability to do so.

That is what our hon. colleague from Mount Royal was indicating. Members on the opposition side have claimed it would be a back door way of implementing the kind of military zone described in Bill C-42 which was withdrawn and replaced by this bill. I would raise the same concern.

Other concerns were raised. My hon. colleague from Scarborough--Rouge River commented earlier about interim orders and the number of days it would take before they were tabled in the House. This was pointed out by other members as well. Why would it take 15 or 23 days to publish them in the Canada Gazette as is indicated in the bill? Why could they not come here sooner? Why could they not come here immediately?

The hon. member for Mount Royal indicated this could happen within 72 hours. I agree. Extraordinary measures should come before this place for scrutiny. Under Bill C-55 some interim orders would be excluded from scrutiny by parliament. Regulations would come to committee for scrutiny but some of the orders would not. In essence regulations would be implemented by the executive branch. The legislative branch would have no opportunity to review them because they would not come to committee or parliament. There would no opportunity for judicial review either. This was the point made by our hon. colleague, a point we should all consider.

If this is a needed piece of legislation we in the official opposition have grave concerns with the way it is drafted. We could only support it if it were amended. I would venture to say the same goes for some government members who have shared our grave concerns about the whole issue of review by parliament and the balance of powers in terms of security versus individual freedoms and rights.

It is incumbent upon us in this place to take our role seriously. We must not allow legislation to come through quickly and without proper review. It is my hope that government members will give Bill C-55 due consideration in terms of the discretionary power it would give the minister of defence and other ministers. We saw difficulties with how the minister of defence handled the whole JTF2 fiasco. Was he briefed? Was he not briefed? When did he know about the turning over of soldiers to American forces? I will not review it in detail but we know there were difficulties with that case.

Bill C-55 would give further discretionary powers to the minister of defence and other ministers, yet the government is asking us to trust it to do what is in the best interest of the security of our country. We want more than an assurance of trust because trust has been lacking in some cases. We want it laid out clearly in the regulations and the legislation. We want the interim orders to come to parliament first. We do not want to review them after the actions to have been taken. What is the use of that? Let us bring them here first and involve parliament in a meaningful way. We should not have a debate just so the government can say we had an opportunity to discuss the bill. We need substantive change.

In closing I refer to the government member for Mount Royal who said the bill is tainted by disconcerting features which need to be addressed and redressed. Bill C-55 needs to be changed. That message was stated clearly by one of our esteemed colleagues on the Liberal side, a professor who studied the issue for many years of his academic life. It has also been stated by members of the opposition.

Let us get it right. Let us deal with the amendments properly. Let us deal with the legislation properly. If we do not we will do a disservice to our country despite our intention of doing something good. Let us get it right. Let us fix it up. We cannot pass the bill unless we get the corrections.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to speak to this bill, since it is such an important one. I understand that all the bills in this House of Commons have a certain importance, but this one is extremely specific in character, and extremely important. It must be considered very wisely.

We need to look at Bill C-55, the purpose of which is to fight terrorism, keeping in mind that this important legislature must meet the expectations of the voters of Canada, and those of Quebec as well. Examination of this bill requires us to bear in mind all the other pieces of legislation in place in Canada, but in particular, the charter of rights and freedoms, which is in place and must be respected as well. We must meet the public's expectations, respect existing legislation as well as the charter, and strike a balance between individual and collective rights and national security.

The government has failed in its duty on at least two occasions, by attempting to get Bill C-42 through, which was divided up and enacted in part, and then by going back to the drawing board and tabling Bill C-55.

Upon examining this new legislation, one cannot help but notice that the government has not listened and is not responding to the expectations of constituents across Canada and Quebec. This is so evident, that at first reading of this bill, the person responsible for monitoring and protecting the privacy of individuals has said that this is legislation that could be found in totalitarian countries. Naturally, I am referring to the privacy commissioner.

I do not agree with the member for Ancaster--Dundas--Flamborough--Aldershot who said that the privacy commissioner should not be commenting. This is not the first time that the privacy commissioner has commented to the media about a bill, saying that it makes sense or does not.

I remember Bill C-36, to fight organized crime, because it is an issue that I was concerned about. This very same privacy commissioner supported it. The member opposite did not rise then to say “He should not comment on it”. No, then it was fine, because the privacy commissioner was supporting the government.

That is not how it works. He did not have to rise when the commissioner commented on Bill C-36, just like he did not have to rise and get offended by the fact that the privacy commissioner made his view on Bill C-55 clear. He described it as unacceptable. He said that it was legislation that could exist, but in totalitarian countries, not a country like Canada, where individual and collective rights are recognized. The privacy commissioner probably came to the same conclusions that the members of the Bloc Quebecois did, when we examined the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I know that I only have ten minutes. I cannot go into detail on each of the points, but you must understand that the whole issue of controlled access military zones worries us.

Incidentally, the words may have changed, but the nuts and bolts of Bill C-55 have not necessarily been changed, because it bears a curious resemblance to Bill C-42, which was plagued with problems. The military security zone is now called a controlled access military zone. This is the biggest change to this section. The whole issue of controlled access military zones is worrisome.

The interim orders that are included in a whole series of acts are also a major source of concern. When we look at the list, we may be surprised, because interim orders may be made under the Department of Health Act, the Explosives Act, the Export and Import Permits Act, the Food and Drugs Act, The Hazardous Products Act, The Marine Transportation Security Act, the Pest Control Products Act, and so on.

What is particular about these interim orders is that each of the ministers responsible for an act will have the authority to make such orders. If we look at these changes, we see that they are exempted from the application of sections 3, 5 and 11 of the Statutory Instruments Act.

A layperson who reads this without really knowing about it, or without the schedule to these acts, may not understand. I wonder if the Minister of National Defence himself understands these provisions, considering the replies that he gave us today.

If we look at the Statutory Instruments Act, we see that sections 3, 5 and 11 are those that are used to determine whether or not an act complies with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I understand why Quebec did not sign the Constitution. Members opposite boast about this and they celebrate the 20th anniversary of the constitution. Incidentally, they are celebrating a little too soon, because it has not been 20 years, but they are celebrating the 20th anniversary simply to show that they are a little mixed up. This year is the 20th anniversary of the patriation of the Constitution. But the 20th anniversary of the coming into effect of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms will come later. They will eventually learn that in the history books, when they read them.

These sections will not be applied to the acts that I listed. In other words, the government will not check to see if these measures respect the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is serious business. Yet, the government seems to be merrily going forward, oblivious of the fact that trouble may lie ahead because of these sections. But, as far as the government is concerned, there is no problem.

The very important part 2 of the bill, which deals with the National Defence Act, gives exceptional powers to the Minister of National Defence regarding the creation of the controlled access military zones to which I referred earlier.

My third concern has to do with the whole issue of damages. It will not be possible to sue the government in cases of abuse.

The amendments to the National Defence Act give excessive powers to the Minister of National Defence. One of these powers has to do with the dimensions of zones. He is the one who, at some point, is going to decide exactly what size of controlled access military zone is needed.

Right off the bat, we think that there should be very specific criteria in the bill so that the minister, whoever he is, cannot get carried away. A properly advised, open-minded legislator acting in good faith includes such criteria in a bill. The criteria in subsection 260.1 (4) are as follows:

The dimensions of a controlled access military zone may not be greater than is reasonably necessary to ensure the safety or security of any person, thing or property for which the zone is designated.

These are the criteria which the Minister of National Defence will use. This is the same Minister of National Defence who showed a lack of judgment in the Afghan prisoner affair.

Let us remember that Canadian troops captured prisoners. The minister knew this. He was told that they had during a briefing. But he did not feel the need to inform the Prime Minister, cabinet, or anyone else, while everyone in Canada was anxiously waiting to hear what would happen if prisoners were taken. He even told the House that none had been, when it fact some had, and so on. This is a flagrant lack of judgment, and this is the same minister who is going to implement this legislation.

It is ridiculous. I could give other examples, such as subsection (14) of this same section, which prevents taxpayers from taking the government to court.

I am being signalled that my time is up. I would have liked to speak at greater length about this bill, because it is extremely important. We in the Bloc Quebecois are naturally against it, because we defend ordinary citizens. That is why we were elected.

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central I am pleased to rise and participate in the debate on Bill C-55, an act to amend certain acts of Canada and to enact measures for implementing the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, in order to enhance public safety.

It has been almost eight months since September 11. This is the Liberal's third attempt at legislation. It was first introduced as Bill C-42. Then it was split. Its offshoot, Bill C-44 was passed. The government reintroduced Bill C-42, then pulled it again last week. Now it has introduced Bill C-55.

This shows a reaction to the September 11 event rather than how the government needs to address the issue. This also shows a lack of vision and strategy by the government. It does not enhance the confidence in the government's ability to lead in the war on terrorism.

The legislation is a feeble reflection of its American counterpart. The U.S. introduced, debated, amended and enacted much more comprehensive security legislation in eight weeks, setting out tasks and defining government responsibilities. President Bush even signed it into law in November 2001, despite an anthrax scare.

It has taken the government eight months to introduce Canada's legislation in three different drafts to give us a sense of comprehension of security and third rate management. Actually all it has done is raised taxes and grabbed more power since September 11.

I am pleased that the Liberals withdrew their last flawed terror bill, Bill C-42. However they seemed to have missed the concerns Canadians had about it regarding an apparent power grab by ministers.

Bill C-55 has many flawed elements but two of them are the power grab by ministers and half-baked measures designed to mirror U.S. legislation. The stated purposes of the bill include: making air rage an offence; strengthening security at restricted areas in airports; requiring transportation companies to provide information on passengers; criminalizing terrorist hoaxes; providing for more control over explosives and sensitive exports; providing for the naming of controlled access military zones by the defence minister; protecting the jobs of reservists called up for service; and implementing the biological and toxin weapons convention.

This is an omnibus bill amending 19 different acts of parliament and implementing one international treaty, as well as impacting nine different ministries, which makes fair scrutiny by one committee almost impossible, amounting to even less accountability in government.

It gives the ministers of the environment, health, transport and fisheries and oceans the authority to issue an interim order effectively giving them the power to act without consulting cabinet or parliament and thus making the government even more arrogant.

This general increase in authority is not accompanied by any new specifics, or an assumption of responsibility by the ministries concerned. It is without any judicial or parliamentary oversight to safeguard the rights of Canadians. Allowing ministers to impose interim orders in contentious areas limits accountability for a bad decision to a single cabinet minister, rather than the Prime Minister or the whole government. This is not a step forward toward more accountable government.

Given the sweeping powers that already exist in the Emergencies Act to declare a public order emergency, an international emergency or even a war emergency, the new interim orders are probably not necessary in most cases.

Although the timeframe for cabinet review of ministerial imposed orders has been reduced from 90 days to 45 days it is a cosmetic change that is still too long a time period. It is 31 days more than the 14 days currently required under the act.

The legislation is inadequate, vague and seems to only be window dressing. It will probably be loaded with regulations. The government is not only weak and arrogant but also infamous for thwarting democracy in the House. The regulations would be imposed without any oversight or debate in parliament. This is not called governing but rather ruling through the back door.

As co-chair of the scrutiny of regulations committee I know how badly we need regulatory reform in the country. Some of the provinces are doing quite a bit, at least more than the federal government. The government needs to submit regulations along with the legislation when it puts it forward for debate in the House so that we know what it is following. As they say, the devil is in the details and the devil has to follow.

The government would now require air transportation companies to provide information about passengers en route to Canada but would not require them to ensure that passengers have documents when they board and when they disembark. There are no provisions to fine companies and require them to return the passengers if they do not have their documents.

The problem of invalid or missing travel documents remains. All persons who do not have documents should be detained automatically until they can prove their identity or their identity can be proven by running criminal checks overseas.

The auditor general said that 40% of potential refugees applying for refugee status in Canada land in the country without any kind of documents in their hands. That puts security at risk. Although airlines are required to check the passports of passengers for citizenship information, it is for immigration purposes only, not for security or ensuring that they land in this country with the documents with which they were able to board the plane.

There is no provision in the bill to send people back. If they were to come through a safe third country nothing could be done about them. All such persons should automatically be sent back. The transportation company should foot the bill for failing to screen the passengers. That is the law in the United States, why not in Canada?

According to the bill collected information would not be shared with law enforcement agencies and could not therefore be used in profiling. Further, the bill would not provide a means by which such information might be processed. It lacks co-ordination and a utilization strategy for the information.

There is little controversy about the provisions for greater sharing of information among financial institutions and regulators in order to comply with the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act. There is nothing about that in the bill. Again it is a lack of co-ordination and co-operation. The government does not understand how to create a synergy of resources and information.

There should be a reasonable balance between security and the privacy rights of Canadians. The provisions proposed in section 4.82 would give the RCMP and CSIS unrestricted access to the personal information of all Canadian air travellers on flights within Canada as well as on international routes without any judicial authorization, explanation or justification as to its necessity.

Only air travellers within Canada would be forced by law to identify themselves to police for scrutiny, not travellers by train, bus or car. It is discriminatory. Similar practices exist in only totalitarian societies where police routinely board trains or establish roadblocks to check identification of people in search of anything in the interest of the state. Such countries have issued compulsory national identity cards or numbers. This provision would be an infringement on the privacy of citizens.

There are other issues, for example, how about law abiding citizens? They would also be required to provide information. Similarly, the amendments to the criminal code deal with hoaxes which are not real terrorist threats. There are so many things that are limiting to democracy.

The bill is contrary to Canadian Alliance policy of calling for more accountability in the government. The Canadian Alliance opposes the bill unless the government amends certain things we have put forward and limits the blanket interim order powers given to the ministers. I look forward to the government making those possible amendments.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the public safety act, 2002, or Bill C-55, contains some important legal prongs or features in the juridical war on terrorists whose purposive basis is the promotion and protection of human security, including the most fundamental rights, the rights to life, liberty and security of the person.

These legal prongs include the following: amendments to the Aeronautics Act to maximize the effectiveness of Canada's aviation system and thereby enhance the ability of the Government of Canada to provide a safe and secure environment for air travel; amendments to the criminal code to deter terrorist hoaxes that endanger the public or heighten public anxiety; amendments to the Explosives Act to establish tighter controls over illicit trafficking in explosives, including the acquisition, exportation, manufacture, storage or transportation of explosives; and amendments to the Export and Import Permits Act establishing controls over the export and electronic transfer of military and strategically sensitive technology.

Perhaps most important, the proposed legislation also would enact the biological and toxin weapons convention implementation act to prevent the development, production, stockpiling, acquisition, transfer or use of biological weapons by states, individuals or other entities. It will thereby reinforce Canada's existing legislation to prevent the development of, and deter the proliferation of, biological weapons. This is a particularly important legal prong in the domestication of international anti-terrorist treaty law in the anti-terrorism juridical effort.

However, the bill also contains some disconcerting features which, however well intentioned, include some errors and omissions that may result in the legislation falling victim to what might be called the “law of unintended consequences”.

The concerns are as follows.

First, while the bill seeks to circumscribe the power initially conferred upon the Minister of National Defence in the predecessor Bill C-42 to designate any part of Canada a military security zone, the scope of both the exercise and application of this power remain problematic. Admittedly, the bill improves upon its predecessor Bill C-42 in that the application of the power is limited to the protection of Canadian and allied military equipment and persons, and the exercise of power is limited to that which is reasonably necessary for this purpose, rather than, as in Bill C-42, what the minister “in his opinion” believed necessary for reasons of international relations, national defence or security.

However, the definition of a “controlled access military zone” has a certain indeterminate feature to it, which could, however inadvertently, be stretched to result in the very thing that this revised version was designed to prevent, for example, the application of this power to something like the G-8 meeting in Kananaskis, simply because the presence of Canadian military equipment or personnel or foreign diplomatic personnel with their related equipment may result in a military zone being nonetheless designated.

As well, it should be appreciated that, under present law, a military base or any property belonging to the Department of National Defence is already a military zone under its control. Clearly, then, we are speaking about the designation of a controlled access military zone that is outside our “defence establishment” on civilian territory. This power needs further delineation and clarification so that it can be clearly limited to the purposes for which it is intended.

Second, and more important, even if the scope of this exercise of ministerial power is appropriately delineated and clarified, the absence of any cabinet or parliamentary accountability is disturbing. In effect, there is no requirement for cabinet authorization of this ministerial decree. There is no requirement that it even be tabled, let alone debated by parliament. There is no express reference to the power of judicial review, though the right of judicial review would still be available even in unexpressed form. In a word, this is government by ministerial decree without the appropriate checks and balances constitutive of a parliamentary democracy.

I am not saying that a carefully circumscribed ministerial power is in no case warranted; I am only saying that the scope of its exercise still has an indeterminate character about it and that it is lacking in the appropriate checks and balances.

Third, as a response to the critique of its predecessor Bill C-42, Bill C-55 further defines and circumscribes the power of other ministers to issue interim orders if “immediate action is required to deal with a significant risk, direct or indirect, to health, safety or the environment”.

Admittedly, the government has refined the scope of these powers by reducing the period within which the minister would be required to obtain cabinet approval from 90 to 45 days after the interim order is made. An additional requirement has been added that now requires that a copy of the interim order be tabled in each house of parliament within 15 sitting days from the time it is issued, thereby instituting a measure of parliamentary oversight. Also, the interim order is expressly subject to judicial review.

However, some disturbing questions remain. Why should there be a waiting period of 45 days to submit these emergency orders for cabinet approval? Why not reduce the period to 72 hours, or a week, as the Canadian Bar Association recommends? These orders are of an emergency character; they can last up to a year. The interim is a long time. The timeframe for cabinet approval needs to be much more expeditious.

Fourth, why should the interim orders have to be tabled in parliament only after 15 sitting days? If parliament were not sitting, there would be no requirement for it to do so. Also, why should parliamentary oversight be limited to the tabling of the interim order and not also the debating of a prospective amendment or an appeal of the interim order, as is consistent with the principle of parliamentary oversight? Again, the principle of parliamentary oversight and accountability needs to be enhanced.

Fifth, both the power of the Minister of National Defence regarding designated controlled access military zones and the power of ministers to issue interim emergency orders are exempt from the application of the Statutory Instruments Act. That means, in brief, that they are exempt from the examination of proposed regulations as required by the Statutory Instruments Act to ensure that these regulations are authorized by the statute pursuant to which they are made; that they do not constitute an unusual or unexpected use of the authority pursuant to which they are made; that they do not trespass unduly on existing rights and freedoms; and that they do not in any case breach the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom.

This does not mean that such decrees or regulations are not subject to the charter but it does mean that the “scrutiny and screen filter”, the filtering out of objectionable features before the regulations are enacted, is absent. Regrettably, a judicial corrective may be necessary when a pre-emptive screening corrective could be utilized first.

Sixth, while Bill C-55, for the most part, strikes a reasonable balance between security and privacy rights, the new provisions giving RCMP and CSIS unrestricted access to the personal information of all Canadian air travellers, both on flights within Canada as well as on international routes, are also disconcerting. For example, if the RCMP can obtain and scan airline manifests in search of anyone subject to an outstanding warrant for any offence punishable by five years or more, or for an offence under the Immigration Act, this would appear to be an undue expansion of police power at the expense of privacy rights, without clear justification.

In other words, if, as the privacy commissioner has put it, proposed section 4.82 were limited to providing the RCMP and CSIS with access to airline passenger information for the sole purpose of checking against databases of known or suspected terrorists, with the proviso that all such information would be destroyed except where a match with the database was found, this could be regarded as a legitimate exercise of police power for security purposes.

Seventh, an appreciation of these three distinct exercises of executive power, the power of the Minister of National Defence to designate a controlled access military zone, the ministerial powers to issue interim urgent orders, and the power of police and security services to access aviation manifests, invite us to ask whether they comport with the proportionality principle, that is, that the remedies sought are rationally connected to the objectives sought to be secured, that they comport with the minimal impairment principle, that is, that they intrude on civil liberties as minimally as possible, and that the value of enacting these powers outweighs their cost.

Eighth, we must ask whether these authorized powers, taken as a whole, maintain the equilibrium between the related needs of security and rights protection.

Ninth, we must ask whether the legislation, taken as a whole, maintains the equilibrium among different branches of government, executive, legislative and judicial, or is there an undue allocation of power to ministers with a corresponding diminution of cabinet responsibility, parliamentary accountability and capacity for judicial review? In particular, the parliamentary role in this legislation appears to be diminished.

Finally, as a matter of parliamentary process, I would recommend that the legislation be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, for the following reasons.

First, this is the second part of the government's anti-terrorism package, the first part of which, Bill C-36, was considered and debated before the justice and human rights committee. As a result, that committee acquired a certain repository of experience, if not expertise, in dealing with anti-terrorism law and policy and related issues.

Second, the bill raises fundamental questions, both about the equilibrium between security and rights protection and the equilibrium among the various branches of government that underpin a constitutional democracy, both of which are foundational legal concerns that are the natural subject matter for such a committee.

Third, the exercise of the authorities of the police and security, both under the criminal code and in surveillance matters, again is the natural stuff for a justice and human rights committee.

In conclusion, the public safety act, 2002, has important features, some of which I have described today, that are germane to an anti-terrorism law and policy and to the protection of public safety and human security. However, there are also disconcerting features, as I have also described, that taint the bill and which need to be addressed and redressed so we can promote human security without unnecessarily intruding on civil liberties.

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to rise to speak to Bill C-55, the public safety act. No Canadian or anyone in the House doubts the importance of protecting security at this critical time. As the Prime Minister and everyone in the House has said, it has become almost a cliche to say the world changed on September 11.

However the threats to security that were demonstrated on September 11 have existed for a long time. In responding to what happened on September 11 the government's goals may be laudable but its means of achieving them have been anything but. The Liberal government has done more to foster global terrorism and expose Canadians to the risk of terrorism on our soil than any government in the history of Canada.

Since coming to office the government has done more to reduce and gut resources for the RCMP, CSIS and the military than any government in the past. Our rules and laws are not the problem. They are not what we need to change. For a long time we have needed the resources to enforce the existing rules. Regardless of the legislation we pass in the House to strengthen the government's hand to act in a more totalitarian way, the goal of improving the security of Canadians will not be met without increased resources for the RCMP, CSIS and the military.

The government recently took baby steps in the right direction on these issues. However for years it has taken funds out of these important enforcement agencies with a backhoe. It now proposes to replace the funds with a teaspoon. The government is trying to fill in some of the potholes it has created through years of neglect.

The Minister of Transport stood in the House at the beginning of the debate and praised Bill C-55. However after listening to him the question remains: Why do we need the legislation? We already have an Emergencies Act to allow a fast response to a national emergency. After the crisis of September 11 the government responded and took extraordinary action within the existing rules.

Bill C-55 is the essence of Liberal parliamentary democracy. By that I mean it would continue the Liberal tradition of doing everything they can to jettison parliamentary democracy. Under the Liberal government more than any previous government we have seen an increased concentration of decision making power away from parliament and into the hands not only of cabinet but of the Prime Minister's Office. Bill C-55 represents another nail in the coffin of Canadian parliamentary democracy.

This legislation would allow the government to bypass parliament. It would severely curtail parliamentary scrutiny and review. The rules Canadians consider so important such as protection of privacy and property and protection against arbitrary arrest would all be compromised by Bill C-55. That is unnecessary because we can provide the security Canadians need and want without compromising the civil liberties they value.

The Liberal privacy commissioner has used the term totalitarian to discuss aspects of Bill C-55. What a scathing condemnation of his own government to refer to the legislation as being totalitarian. Canadians are intelligent and will decide for themselves the number of ways the bill violates their rights. I am afraid that Canadians will not realize until too late the regressive nature of the bill in terms of pulling back some of the fundamental civil liberties that Canadians have come to assume are part of our values.

The bill represents another flawed piece of Liberal legislation. It is a slap in the face for Canadians who value their privacy and property rights. In the wake of September 11 it is understandable that the government would seek to draft legislation that would address some of these extreme circumstances we find ourselves in not just in Canada but around the world.

The arbitrary nature of the decision making process by the government in creating the legislation is really unfortunate. The government refers to consultation and that it has listened. It really has not listened or pursued a full and consultative approach in creating the legislation.

If the government were to reverse some of the very significant and draconian cuts that were made to the military, the RCMP and CSIS resources, a lot of the existing rules would be fine just the way they are. The government in some ways is using September 11 as a means to further strengthen its hand and further reduce parliamentary scrutiny.

I do not want to sound like a conspiracy theorist but I saw the government use September 11 as an excuse to create a $4 billion tax grab with the air security tax. In Canada it is $24 for every round trip. The U.S. equivalent for the same level of security is $5. The government used that opportunity, the fear of Canadians post September 11 to exact more revenue out of Canadian taxpayers which made me feel very skeptical. I really question the government's motives.

With the legislation perhaps the government sees that September 11 has created further opportunity to concentrate power at the expense of the civil liberties of Canadians. I urge the government to not always use every opportunity to reduce the role of parliament and concentrate greater levels of power in the executive branch. Instead it should enforce the rules that are there now and increase the resources that are needed to do so.

The bill furthers the concentration of power in the hands of the ministers. We know what the government did in terms of ministerial accountability. We have seen minister after minister fail to be accountable to parliament, to committees and to the trust that Canadians vest in them.

The interim orders made by ministers alone without parliamentary approval could remain secret for 23 days. They could be in effect for 45 days without any cabinet approval.

We have a defence minister now who cannot remember what happens at briefing sessions and forgets to brief the Prime Minister and cabinet. This is like a dream piece of legislation for the defence minister. Not only can he forget something for seven days, he could forget something for 45 days without having to worry about it.

The whole notion of ministerial accountability is gutted by the legislation. A minister would not even have to seek cabinet approval and could act arbitrarily. These extreme measures could be in effect for 45 days without cabinet approval. That of course would help because based on the Prime Minister's style of leadership, he would probably rather golf than govern anyway. It would probably be inconvenient to call cabinet meetings particularly during the summertime.

Unless specified in the order, the order can be in effect for a year. If the minister so chooses, it can be renewed for at least another year. All this is without parliamentary approval. The changes from Bill C-42 are a slight improvement, a tiny pittance of an improvement, but once again parliament and the public are relegated to the back seat.

The changes to the National Defence Act in this legislation are a perfect example. The minister in the past has demonstrated that he is less than forthright with the public, parliament, his party, his caucus and even his leader and cabinet. Did we take hostages or did we not? Were the hostages handed over or not? Was the Prime Minister told or was he not?

The fact is the whole British parliamentary system is based on the sanctity of ministerial accountability. The Minister of National Defence would have had his marching orders provided to him by the Prime Minister if he had served in the cabinet of Tony Blair. He would have been gone by 10 o'clock on the morning the debacle became public.

Instead, in order to protect the sub-mediocrity of the front benches, the government will do anything to avoid resignations. It would even send them to Denmark if the opportunity existed just so it could say that it was not wrong and the Prime Minister did not make a mistake. Canadians know a lot better.

It took the minister three briefings to bring him up to speed. There was a day when cabinet ministers were chosen based on their perspicacity and ability to be briefed quickly and understand issues. The Prime Minister wants that minister now to have even greater unchecked authority, controlled access to military zones anywhere in Canada. Make no mistake about it. Under this legislation the government can drive a tank onto any street in the country and at the discretion of the minister call it a military secure zone.

Most Canadians, including the minister's own chain of command within the military, have expressed significant doubts as to the competence of the minister. For him to be provided with this level of power to act arbitrarily and create a military zone wherever he wants is truly frightening.

Under subsection 260.1(1)(b) concerning controlled access military zones, there is some question as to what the government means by property. Is this real property as in real estate, or property in terms of equipment, such as a main battle tank or military vehicle? The answer comes in subsection 260.1(3) where the designation of the nature of the zone states:

A controlled access military zone may consist of an area of land or water, a portion of airspace, or a structure or part of one, surrounding a thing referred to in subsection (1) or including it, whether the zone designated is fixed or moves with that thing. The zone automatically includes all corresponding airspace above, and water and land below, the earth's surface.

If the nature of this legislation were to create these zones in, on or around areas with permanent structures not designated as military bases, there would be no need for clarification of this type. This gives the minister, Canada's defensive minister in this case, not as the minister of defence but as the defensive minister, the ability to designate a controlled military access zone around any piece of military property he feels necessary and as the equipment moves through an area, so goes the zone.

Canadians work long, hard hours and pay a lot of taxes. They work hard for everything they own. The stroke of a pen by the minister can negate the expectations of a person's property rights in Canada. That is clearly egregious to Canadians when they think of it. It should be offensive to every member of the House.

Liberals might suggest that checks and balances are contained within subsection (6) where a maximum time limit of one year is put on the zone. However as 7(b) states that following the renewal of a year, the governor in council can sidestep the subsection should the government want the designation in effect for more than one year.

These are broad, sweeping powers provided to a minister who has demonstrated very little competence, who has in fact earned the wrath of Canadians and lost the respect of his own chain of command. The fact that the Minister of National Defence, particularly the present Minister of National Defence, would be given this level of power is truly emblematic of the deep flaws and rot within the legislation.

While there are a number of issues we disagree with, the bill does have some positive notes. We believe there are some positive steps being taken with regard to part 4 of the bill which deals specifically with an amendment to the criminal code.

The notion of criminalizing a hoax in regard to terrorist activities makes a great deal of sense. That has already existed for a long time in airports. We cannot make jokes about bombings and that sort of thing. That makes a tremendous amount of sense. However that is like a thimble full of positive steps in a sea of bad things in the legislation.

If the government were serious about improving the security of Canadians, it would address some of the flaws and mistakes of the past. It would address funding issues for the RCMP and CSIS. It would address funding issues of our Canadian military. The government would address some of the flaws in our current immigration system.

Canadians ought not to learn about flaws in our immigration system on 60 Minutes. Parliament should be more assiduously focused on addressing those flaws and those issues.

If the government were serious about achieving the ends of a more secure Canada and a Canada more willing to protect itself against the threats of international terrorism on our soil, there are ways that could be accomplished. Those laudable goals could have been accomplished without compromising the human rights and the civil liberties of Canadians.

The government used September 11 in an exploitative way to create a multibillion dollar tax grab by creating the air security tax. It was intentionally larger than it needed to be to exact as much money out of Canadian taxpayers as possible. The government exploited September 11 to raise more government revenue in a shameless, unconscionable way. It is now using September 11 once again as an excuse to clamp down on the civil liberties of Canadians and to further reduce parliament's important role in representing Canadians to further strengthen the power of cabinet, the power of the Prime Minister and the PMO.

It is absolutely shameful that the government would take an event like September 11, an event that has in so many ways focused the efforts of people around the world on what can be done to better protect ourselves against terrorism. Instead of moving in a constructive way to fight terrorism and find ways to better protect Canadians against terrorism on our soil, it is using September 11 as a way to extend its powers, to raise more tax revenues, to further reduce the role of parliament and further strengthen cabinet and the Prime Minister's hold over the power of this country.

I think that is really unfortunate. We fight terrorism to protect democracy. The government uses the threat of terrorism to reduce democracy. That is just a terrible state of affairs.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we looked closely at Bill C-42 and what it represented. As hon. members know, we listened to all kinds of Canadians. We decided to change it and bring in Bill C-55 to meet the requirements people had. We listened to the statements people made and were sensitive to all the issues raised by the opposition.

In making this balancing act we have brought forth good, solid legislation that would adhere to the charter and privacy rights of Canadians while making sure safety and security were paramount. We talked to Canadians about the issues. They fully understand that through the RCMP and CSIS, two great institutions we are blessed to have, we want to be able to catch the people--

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal member concluded his speech by saying that he wants to protect individual freedoms and privacy rights.

I will simply quote a text published in today's edition of La Presse , which is not necessarily a sovereignist newspaper, members will agree. The heading is “The Privacy Commissioner condemns Bill C-55”. The privacy commissioner is also not a sovereignist and he is definitely not a Bloc Quebecois member. The text goes on to say that “some practices are similar to those that exist in totalitarian states”.

This is an excerpt from a letter addressed by the commissioner to the government. I will quote part of it for the benefit of the Quebecers and Canadians who are listening. I continue reading the text:

Some measures including in the new anti-terrorist bill introduced by the Chrétien government are squarely patterned on those that exist in totalitarian states, according to privacy commissioner George Radwanski.

Mr. Radwanski condemns Ottawa's decision to include in Bill C-55 new provisions that would give the RCMP and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) unrestricted access to personal information from all Canadians travelling on domestic or international flights.

According to the commissioner, these “exceptional” measures go far beyond anti-terrorism and are in fact “a dramatic expansion of privacy-invasive police powers without explanation or justification as to its necessity”.

I am still reading the letter addressed to the government by the commissioner:

“The precedent set [by the new provisions] could open the door, in principle, to practices similar to those that exist in totalitarian societies where police routinely board trains or establish roadblocks to check identification papers in search of anyone of interest to the state”, said Mr. Radwanski in a written statement released yesterday.

It should be noted that these measures were not included in the first version of Bill C-42, which was suddenly scrapped, and that the commissioner feels that police forces might eventually ask the government for similar powers in the case of Canadians travelling by train, bus or rental car.

What does the Liberal member think of these comments by the privacy commissioner?

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-55, the public safety act.

The government has taken a very measured approach in drafting the bill. We are demonstrating with the bill our continued commitment to the values of Canadians. The bill carries on the work of the government's anti-terrorism agenda, an agenda that we have pursued with urgency, I might add, in the interests of increasing public protection against terrorism. It walks a balance between safety and security for our citizens and the privacy rights of all Canadians.

The fight against terrorism is a long one. No one doubts that for a minute. It is important and it is an effort that must be sustained both nationally and internationally. That is why, then, it is critical that our law enforcement agencies and public security organizations have the best information with which to work.

We have come up with improvements in Bill C-55 that will increase our anti-terrorism response. In particular, the bill should enhance the capability of the RCMP and CSIS to protect the public, especially the safety of air passengers. That is very important and is something that all Canadians desire, need and require.

The amendments respond to the concerns raised by some of our hon. colleagues that Bill C-42 needed to be improved to prevent terrorism and to prevent terrorists from accessing Canadian planes. We have listened in this regard and have come up with Bill C-55 in response.

I would now like to address the proposals in the bill concerning passenger information: what they will do, how they will better inform and give better information sharing to improve public safety, and how they will balance privacy rights with the need for law enforcement and intelligence.

To support the government's new air carrier protection program, designated officers would have access to specific passenger information to check for potential terrorists and serious criminals as well as threats to transportation security. In particular, an RCMP designated officer would be able to check for outstanding warrants for serious offences, warrants issued under the Immigration Act or by a foreign state for which a person should be extradited.

This is a sensible approach and a sensible scheme because it not only promotes the security of air passengers but also improves overall public safety. For example, it enables the RCMP to notify the responsible police force if it discovers after accessing passenger information that a person is wanted for an outstanding warrant for a serious offence such as murder, for example.

Under no circumstances could this information be used for broader law enforcement purposes such as a criminal investigation and it would not permit unbridled arrest and detention of any law-abiding passenger. As is currently the case, before any arrest for an outstanding warrant the police would have to positively identify the person named in that warrant. The result would be more effective protection of passengers and cross-border co-ordination to intercept terrorists and criminals. Again, that is something that Canadians want and require.

I want to emphasize that we have built into this scheme very strict and rigorous privacy protection. Only a very small core group of officers especially designated by the RCMP commissioner or the director of CSIS would be able to access passenger information for specific purposes related to their agencies' mandates. For example, while only the RCMP could access passenger information for warrant purposes, only CSIS could access it to investigate terrorist threats. Once obtained, passenger information could be matched against other information under the control of the RCMP or CSIS. This would assist, then, in identifying passengers who are known or suspected terrorists.

Only designated officers would be able to share matched information with specific parties for very restricted purposes. For example, disclosures could be made to aircraft protective officers to assist with their transportation security duties. An RCMP designated officer would be able to advise local police if a kidnapped child, for example, were arriving on a scheduled flight.

To ensure accountability and transparency, written records would have to be kept to justify both the retention and the disclosure of passenger information. This would enable review agencies such as the Security Intelligence Review Committee, the inspector general for CSIS and the privacy commissioner to readily examine records for compliance with the law. All accessed passenger information would have to be destroyed within seven days unless it was reasonably required for the restricted purposes of transportation security or the investigation of terrorist threats, for example, to analyze travel patterns of known or suspected terrorists. There is absolutely no authority for examining or tracking persons who do not present such threats.

The RCMP and CSIS would each be required to conduct an annual review of information retained by designated officers. If retention were no longer justified, again, the information would have to be destroyed. This is in keeping with the general thrust of the legislation to ensure that privacy is paramount in this all important area, but not at the expense of security and safety for Canadians. Given the sensitivity of terrorist information, only a CSIS designated officer could disclose to another CSIS employee for a counterterrorism investigation under the CSIS act, and only after approval by a senior CSIS designated officer. Finally, thresholds would have to be met before passenger information could be shared. For example, a designated officer would need to have reason to believe that the information would assist in the execution of a warrant.

In developing these amendments, the government is being responsive to the concerns that have been raised about screening passengers who are potential threats. Hence the safety and security of not only the country but of Canadian citizens and others: if we are to have an effective air carrier protective program, we need to have these legitimate changes.

The privacy commissioner announced yesterday that he would not “...stand in the way of legitimate and necessary measures to enhance security against terrorism”. That is exactly what these amendments do. They promote safe air travel, safety and protection from terrorists and confidence that passenger information will be used effectively for public safety purposes, all while respecting privacy rights. That too is something that Canadians have said loud and clear and have said repeatedly, and certainly we in this parliament have listened.

The scheme I have outlined does not permit unrestricted access to passenger information. It is tightly controlled and would be a legitimate part of transportation security in Canada's fight against terrorism. Using a variety of safeguards and accountability mechanisms, the scheme has been carefully designed to integrate security demands for information and the protection of the privacy rights of Canadians.

By way of recap, let me say that the new bill is something that has come about as a result of the government listening closely to Canadians, listening closely to people who have a great deal of interest in this area, and listening closely to people who want to ensure that there is safety and security in this great country of ours but at the same time ensure that our privacy rights as Canadians, fundamental to each and every one of us, are in fact protected.

The bill further defines and circumscribes the power of the Minister of National Defence to establish controlled access military zones and of other ministers to use interim orders in emergency situations, particularly through greater involvement of parliament. It also provides more comprehensive parameters for the new terrorist hoax offenses, and it provides strong measures to ensure accountability and transparency.

It also includes important provisions that will make Canadians safer by, as I have noted, improving the capacity of federal departments and agencies involved in anti-terrorism and national security activities to share that kind of critical information and co-ordinate their work in a manner consistent with the operations of these agencies, to ensure safety and security for all. It does so by providing for the smooth flow of information between Canada and its international partners, particularly the United States, with which we share a border, in order to prevent terrorist activity and protect public safety and by allowing the Government of Canada to provide financial assistance wherever necessary to enhance marine security.

At the same time, the act retains the key elements from Bill C-42 such as measures that will, for example, clarify and update existing aviation security authorities to maximize the effectiveness of the aviation security system and enhance the ability of the Government of Canada to provide a safe and secure environment for aviation. It also does so by deterring irresponsible hoaxes that endanger the public or heighten public anxiety, all of which has the net effect of creating even more terrorism among our midst.

It does so too by establishing tighter controls over explosives and hazardous substances, activities related to other dangerous substances such as pathogens and the export and transfer of technology. It does so by helping to identify and prevent harmful unauthorized use of interference with defence computer systems and networks and, finally, it deters the proliferation of biological weapons.

All of this is to say, then, that Bill C-55, this public safety act, is the work of a government intent on providing safety and security for the country and safety and security for Canadians wherever they live, but at the same time, and again to repeat it because it is an important point, to preserve the privacy rights of Canadians in a manner consistent with the great values of our country and certainly consistent with the charter of rights and freedoms. I believe that in walking this balance we have been able to provide the kind of legislation that is good, decent and worthy of support.

I would certainly ask colleagues on all sides of the House to support the bill, knowing that at the end of the day what it does is ensure that ours is a safer and more secure country, but at the same time it protects those rights and those responsibilities and the privacy that flows from that for all Canadians.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the time allotted to me, and I wish to thank all members who are considering voting for this very important measure because certainly it is worth doing so.

Public Safety Act

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-55 is the product of debate and deliberation in this House. It was because of the very salient points put forward by members on all sides of the House on Bill C-42 that we withdrew the bill and brought forward Bill C-55. This is an example of democracy working. This is an example of a government that listens.

I recommend that hon. members read and study the bill. If they have concerns, bring them forward at committee. This is a first class piece of legislation.

Public Safety Act, 2002

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, as I said, the privacy commissioner has raised a lot of concerns about this. I am sure he will be before the committee whenever the bill gets to committee.

This is a new Achilles heel of the government's legislation. It is something that is new. It was not in Bill C-42. It is a new thing and it cannot be passed off as just modified Bill C-42 legislation. It is a brand new requirement and is a brand new power given to the RCMP, CSIS and the government. It is something that the government has yet to convince me or other Canadians is necessary to fight terrorism.

It might be a convenient tool for a whole variety of purposes, but there are all kinds of convenient tools that we do not provide to government because we value other things. I again refer to what the hon. Liberal MP and chair of the Ontario caucus said about this new police power. He said that it was wide open to what he referred to as function creep. It goes from terrorism to organized crime to ordinary criminality to invasion of privacy of Canadians who are otherwise law abiding. This has a lot of potential for abuse.

Canadians should be concerned. That is the reason why we need a rather lengthy legislative process on this. Part of the purpose of delay, just to speak to parliamentary dynamics for a minute, is not delay for its own sake. It is not delay to be inefficient or obstructionist. Delay is what gives the public time to find out what is going on.

If everything was done in a hurry and done “efficiently”, everything would be over before the public figured out what was going on. As far as I am concerned, here is a classic example of the function of parliamentary delay. This needs to be delayed until the Canadian people can be made more fully aware of this new dimension of the legislation that the government has before it. Then, as political parties, we can all make our respective judgments to whether or not the Canadian people are willing to accept that. We cannot make that judgment if it is all over and done with before they realize what has happened.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, if I recall my own speech correctly, it seems to me I did raise this very matter that there may be loopholes in what we now have in Bill C-55 and that through the location or insertion of a particular piece of military equipment into a particular zone in proximity to an international gathering or whatever this could then be used. As the minister says, of course it could be challenged in the courts after the event.

I am glad to have the hon. member and his party on board in opposing Bill C-42 and to these measures. I remember when Bill C-36 came before the House the NDP was alone in expressing concerns about these security measures. I welcome the new found concern of the Canadian Alliance about the welfare of people who are protesting against globalization and various other things because it seems to me that a year ago, when we were expressing similar concerns about what had happened to protesters in Quebec City, we were scorned by people in the party of the hon. member. They have come a long way, and it just goes to show that some people are in fact teachable.

[Grant McNally, Canadian Alliance, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Madam Speaker, the Minister of National Defence gave a speech in the House just moments ago. He was quoted in the paper as saying:

The previous bill did have this provision in it where the minister of defence could have designated the entire Kananaskis area, but that's not possible under this new legislation. The only thing that could be protected or cordoned off would be military equipment itself if it were stationary.

My colleague mentioned sleight of hand and issues of trust in his speech. Does he believe that perhaps part of the sleight of hand with this bill is found in clause 74 under proposed section 260.1, which was referred to by the Bloc member previously? By moving equipment into an area outside of a military establishment these provisions could then be extended to that territory, thereby doing almost a back door application of the same kind of military zones that were mentioned in the previous bill, Bill C-42. Does he see that as a possibility under this bill?

Although the minister may assure us that we should not worry, that everything will be okay and that is not what is intended here, once it is in law what is to stop this minister or any other minister or the Prime Minister from saying “I do not know” to “Just watch me” once it is in legislation? Would he agree with that possibility in this section of the bill?

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Well the government is doing it awful slowly if it is doing it. I guess it is trying to do it in a way that nobody notices.

We know the problems the military is having with recruitment and with infrastructure. Some of our armories are the only places where we can walk in and feel like we are having a time travel experience. Our armories do not look any different than they did in 1965 when I first started going as a cadet. If I ever want to revisit my past I just have to go there and I will see that absolutely nothing has changed except that the rifle ranges are closed down because proper equipment has not been provided and a whole bunch of other things that used to be there are not there. However I did not get up to make a speech about the reserves. I am here to talk about Bill C-55.

With respect to Bill C-55, we in the NDP were opposed to Bill C-42 and we are opposed to Bill C-55 in spite of some of the changes that have been made. The minister pointed out changes that have been made with respect to controlled access military zones. The change between Bill C-42 and Bill C-55 is a change for the better in the sense that it does limit in a way what the previous bill did not, and that is the application of this particular power of the minister of defence.

I understand the difference between being able to designate areas around equipment, personnel and entire areas that contain that which the forces have been assigned to protect. That is fair enough. However what the minister has not answered is whether or not the insertion of equipment or personnel into the area that is to be protected or in close proximity to those which are to be protected could then become a rationale for doing in effect what was possible in Bill C-42.

In the final analysis this comes down to trust. Do we trust the government not to have a hidden agenda or not to abuse the language that we see in Bill C-55? It is a hard thing to get a hold on. It is a bit like what we talked about when we were debating Bill C-36. If we had been debating Bill C-36 not in a context where protesters had been pepper sprayed at APEC, rubber bulleted at Quebec City, et cetera, maybe we would have had a more trusting feeling about the government when it came to Bill C-36. We still have not been able to build up that appropriate sense of trust so that we can take at face value what the minister says about these new controlled military access zones not being available for purposes like Kananaskis, although the minister has been very clear that it is not intended and cannot be used for Kananaskis. We will know soon whether the minister was telling the House something that is not true.

With respect to the difference between Bill C-42 and Bill C-55, it seems to me that we have a bit of sleight of hand here in the sense that there is the illusion of more parliamentary involvement than there was in Bill C-42. There was no illusion of parliamentary involvement in Bill C-42. We cannot accuse Bill C-42 of being involved in any sort of sleight of hand. However in Bill C-55 interim orders would have to be tabled in the House of Commons within 15 sittings days and therefore we would have the opportunity theoretically of these interim orders being the object of debate in the House of Commons. I grant that, except that we all know that simply to be tabled in parliament does not mean that it will be debated in parliament or voted on in parliament because the government controls parliament. Except in the situation of minority parliaments or in the situation where we had a much freer political culture than we do now in the House, the government controls parliament. In fact when the Minister of Transport was being interviewed on this he said “It will be tabled in parliament and you know, an opposition MP might be able to move a motion to have it debated and the government might even support it”. The word is “might”.

What we are saying is that if we really wanted parliamentary oversight and wanted an opportunity for parliament to debate this we would not leave this to the whim of a government that might be sensitive about what it had just done 15 sitting days ago. We might want to mandate that parliament would have to debate it within a certain timeframe, perhaps not 15 days, but perhaps within a certain timeframe after it has been tabled, whatever, but we would not leave it subject to the parliamentary dictatorial powers of a majority government as to whether or not that ever actually came up for debate.

That is certainly one of the concerns that we have. The fact is that the interim orders themselves, as has been argued by other members in the House, are inferior substitutes for the kind of powers that the government now has under the Emergencies Act, except that the Emergencies Act of course would have to involve parliament in a much more meaningful way than these interim orders potentially involve parliament.

Quite the contrary to what the government is saying, it may not be that now it has listened to Canadians and now it is trying to involve parliament. It may be that we just have a more sophisticated run around parliament in Bill C-55 than we had in Bill C-42 which was a rather blunt instrument and more transparently contemptuous of parliament than Bill C-55. Of course, if the government wants to claim otherwise, then we look forward to rather extensive study of this in committee, which brings me to my second point.

There was an emergency, so the government said. Clearly there was an emergency after 9/11. However whatever emergency Bill C-42 was intended to address, certainly could not have been much of an emergency, if the bill could sit on the order paper for months.

Now the Liberals have been listening to Canadians. I do not remember hearings on Bill C-42 because we never even had the first round of debate in this House about it. It never even got to the NDP and the Tories when it came to the debate on second reading, but the Liberals have been listening. If one were to listen to the rhetoric of the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Transport and the Prime Minister, one would think we had a thorough debate about this. Now we have to get this through by the end of June.

Four months of idleness on the part of the government with respect to Bill C-42 and now it is a big emergency. We will not be able to have extensive committee hearings. It is the same old show. It is the same as with Bill C-36. Anything that is important, we have to get it through in a hurry. The legislation can sit on the order paper for four or five months with no problem, but now we have to get this thing into committee, have hearings and it has to be all over and done with by the end of June.

The government really has its nerve when it comes to Bill C-55. It is a parliamentary outrage that it would expect us to say that there is an emergency, as if it has been acting as if there were an emergency when in fact it has not.

I put the government on notice to the extent that the NDP is able to influence matters here. I get a similar feeling from other opposition parties that we do not see any grounds now for some kind of unholy rush, particularly when Bill C-55 is not a reduced, or ameliorated or amended version of Bill C-42. What we have are entirely new measures inserted into Bill C-55. I am thinking in particular of the measures to do with the revelation of lists of passenger on planes.

When the government was listening to Canadians, whenever that process took place, that invisible process that happened between when it first introduced Bill C-42 and when it withdrew it, I guess I missed it. I missed all those public meetings where Canadians were saying that they wanted the RCMP and CSIS to know every time they got on a plane and that they wanted to have that information in some big computer somewhere. I do not remember anyone asking for that. Maybe the RCMP and CSIS asked for it. However let us not kid ourselves. It was not something for which that Canadians were calling. The privacy commissioner has expressed very real concerns and objections to this.

There is a whole new dimension to this bill. We are supposed to pass it because now the government is in a rush. When it came to this, the government was in a coma for four months but now there has been a boom, it has woken up, little lights have gone on and now the rest of us have to just shove it on through. I do not think the opposition will go for that, particularly with respect to this new demand for information.

A Liberal member of the justice committee was quoted in the paper as saying there was no reason this provision could not be expanded. I am talking now about giving information with respect to lists of passengers on trains, buses and people who rent cars. Why do we not just find out the names of everyone who goes into Wal-Mart. Where does this end?

I thought this was to fight terrorism. There are ways to fight terrorism, including on planes, that we support. However we do not support using 9/11 to create everyone's nightmare of a big brother, where everyone knows what everyone else is doing. Not everyone knows; big brother knows the travelling habits of people. The credit card companies probably know already, but that is beside the point. Why does the government not just go there. That is certainly one thing about which we are concerned.

We think we are being offered a bit of a sleight of hand here as to what a great improvement Bill C-55 is over Bill C-42. We want to see a thorough process when it comes to this bill. For the government to expect that somehow now we will just let this thing go is a very serious mistake on its part.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I guess I will have to fit my questions into my speech seeing as I did not have an opportunity to ask the minister any questions.

While the minister is still present, I will start with one of the things raised in the question and answer period concerning the status of reserve military personnel and the way in which the bill provides for them to be able to return to their jobs after being called up in an emergency. I acknowledge that this is not just in Bill C-55 but that it was also in Bill C-42. Even though I do not like most of the bill, I am pleased with that particular aspect of it because we do owe our reservists that much. When they are called up in an emergency situation they should be guaranteed that they can to return to their jobs.

What I would urge the minister is for the government at some point to go further than this and create a similar regulation or a similar piece of legislation for reservists who volunteer for peacekeeping missions. It seems to me that we would be able to make better use of our reserve forces for these kinds of missions if more people were free to volunteer and were guaranteed that they could return to their jobs after participating in such missions.

If I heard the minister correctly, those kinds of missions are not covered by Bill C-55, so I am not misrepresenting the case. I urge on the minister that the government at some point should consider this. I know there are plenty of people in the reserve and within the military community at large who feel that this is something that should occur in any event. It would create a situation where better use could be made of our reserves.

While I am on that topic, one of the things that has always struck me over the years here in the House is how little controversy there has been about the use and the role of the reserve armed forces. This is one of the things that has always been a mystery to me. This is one area of defence spending in which there is no controversy. If the government announced tomorrow that it was going to spend more money on the reserves, there would not be an opposition party that would be critical of it. This has been true for a long time and yet it never happens. This is one thing government after government could have done without the kind of criticism that it might expect on nuclear submarines, on this helicopter, on that helicopter or on whatever. This is the one thing governments could do and there would not be a peep and yet it does not do it.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the minister, who said he had understood what people wanted and that that was what had finally convinced him to make amendments to Bill C-42. The terminology is the biggest change to the bill. He has gone from military security zones to controlled access military zones. The minister's powers, however, remain practically the same. That is what people were afraid of.

Regarding the powers given to the Minister of National Defence, members should examine subsection 4 of section 260.1. It reads as follows: “The dimensions of a controlled access military zone may not be greater than is reasonably necessary—”. This is pretty sweeping.

How will this be interpreted by the Minister of National Defence, who showed a distinct lack of judgment throughout the Afghan prisoner affair. He did not even feel the need to inform the Prime Minister or cabinet that our troops had taken prisoners, when everyone was on the alert and it was an issue internationally. He did not have the judgment for a simple decision like that. How is he going to interpret the term reasonably necessary? And how is he going to justify these interim orders, when sections 3, 5 and 11 of the Statutory Instruments Act do not even apply to these entire sections of the legislation.

As members are well aware, under sections 3, 5 and 11 of the Statutory Instruments Act, regulations are checked to ensure that they are consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is all very fine and well to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the charter, but the first opportunity that the government has to demonstrate that the charter means something to it, it introduces Bill C-55, and excludes entire sections of the legislation from the application of the charter. Does it not think that it is making a mistake with this bill and that it is treating the comments it has received from Canadians and Quebecers with arrogance?

The Liberal backbenchers who never say anything are another fine example. They are there to be yes men and they let anything through.

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, last fall the government promised that it would listen to the concerns of members of parliament and Canadians with regard to Bill C-42 and it has. Bill C-55 improves on Bill C-42.

This bill will improve the safety of Canadians, while protecting their rights and their privacy.

I would like to briefly outline for the House how the proposals contained in Bill C-55 would affect the defence portfolio and the National Defence Act. I will begin with controlled access military zones.

One of the most substantial changes in the new bill is the replacement of the military security zones as defined in Bill C-42 with the new controlled access military zones. These zones would be temporary areas designated to protect defence establishments as well as Canadian forces and visiting forces' personnel and property, both on and off defence establishments. This would include, for instance, a Canadian, American, Italian or French ship that might be anchored in one of our harbours, or perhaps a Royal Air Force aircraft or two that would be temporarily staying at a civilian airport.

The new controlled access military zones are more limited than originally envisioned and have more restrictions on their use and purpose. For example, these zones would only be designated where they are considered reasonably necessary to ensure the safety and security of Canadian forces or allied personnel or equipment.

In other words, there would be no sweeping designations for international conferences, such as the one at Kananaskis. There would be no sweeping designations, as some people suggested, to cover an entire province or city. That was never the intent, but certainly people expressed fear about it.

In addition, the authority given by the minister of defence cannot exceed one year. Only the governor in council, the cabinet, could approve a renewal and only if it is deemed reasonably necessary, a fact that could always be tested in the courts, that the designation be in place for a period longer than one year.

These zones would help us better protect our military personnel, equipment and establishments from the possibility of terrorist attacks. They would make us a more responsible ally when it comes to protecting visiting forces.

Following our consultations, we introduced a second series of amendments concerning the protection of defence systems and networks.

Provision in Bill C-55 would give the Department of National Defence and the Canadian forces the authority to protect their information technology without compromising the privacy of individuals. Defence systems and networks play a critical role in the daily operations of the Canadian forces both at home and in the field. As such they are high value targets for attack and for manipulation.

Under the new legislation the Minister of National Defence would have the authority to permit the department and the Canadian forces to intercept communications into, from, or through defence computer systems. This is very similar to a provision in Bill C-36 that involved the civilian oriented Communications Security Establishment in the defence of government departments and their systems. This would be done only in order to identify, isolate or prevent the harmful, and I emphasize the word harmful, unauthorized use, interference or damage to the information systems.

These authorities would be strictly for the protection of our systems. They would have nothing to do with listening to private conversations or eavesdropping, nor would they apply to actions that would more appropriately be covered under the government's acceptable use policy or the criminal code. They are however, essential to protect our information technology systems here at home and abroad. In the case of controlled access military zones, they would make Canada a more reliable international partner. Our IT systems are often closely integrated with those of our allies and we cannot afford to be the weak link in that chain.

The privacy of Canadians would remain paramount when it comes to applying these new authorities. A number of safeguards regarding the use and retention of intercepted communications have been incorporated into this provision. For example, the commissioner of the Communications Security Establishment will be responsible for reviewing activities carried out under this authorization.

Nothing in this part of the bill will in any way affect the powers or the role of the privacy commissioner who has previously looked at these kinds of systems in connection with CSE and has found them to be quite satisfactory.

Let me turn to the establishment of the reserve military judges panel. There are six provisions in the bill that apply to defence. This is another one. The amendment is designed to provide the chief military judge with a mechanism to access qualified reserve officers with prior experience as judges in the military justice system.

The establishment of this panel would ensure that our military judiciary has the same flexibility as currently exists in the civilian court system. It would provide an effective and efficient mechanism to respond to short term increases in demand for judicial services. At the same time it would prove beneficial when competing demands or conflicts limit the availability of the permanent cadre of military judges. The amendment is about efficiency and due process, which I believe Canadians would support.

Another element in the legislation is job protection for members of the reserves. Our ability to generate forces in the event of an emergency can in part depend on the compulsory call out of reservists. Should this situation arise, we have a responsibility to ensure that these members do not lose their civilian employment. The bill would ensure that they are reinstated with their civilian employers in equivalent work upon their return from the call out. The proposed amendment would mean that reservists would not have to choose between possibly losing their livelihoods and breaking the law that requires them to serve on call.

This is a pragmatic and a moral concern.

We will not be able to recruit new members if they risk losing their jobs when called out compulsorily. At the same time we cannot oblige our people to serve and not protect their employment. These measures will ensure that the dedicated men and women of the reserves are treated fairly when they make the sacrifice to serve their country.

I might add, if they are volunteering for a service such as they have in some of our past natural disasters, such as the ice storm, or the floods in the Saguenay or the floods in the Red River, that would continue to be on a voluntary basis as it has been in the past. In this post-September 11 world with the possibility of a terrorist attack and if an emergency arises in which there has to be a compulsory call out, it is only in that context we would use the job protection provisions. It is only in the context of an emergency compulsory call out.

Dealing with the word emergency brings me to the next component of the amendment and that is the definition of emergency. The proposed amendment simply modernizes the definition of emergency found in the National Defence Act by making clear reference to circumstances of armed conflict that fall short of formally declared war. It will now be defined as “insurrection, riot, invasion, armed conflict or war, whether real or apprehended”.

The difference from the previous longstanding legislation are the words “armed conflict” and the word “whether”. The word “whether” is put in the English text to make it balance with the French text. Insurrection, riot, invasion or war have always been there.

Not too many wars are actually declared these days even though there is armed conflict. There has not been a war declared by this country since the second world war even though there are a number of conflicts that have been called war in the colloquial sense. In the popular jargon when we refer to such things as Korea or gulf or Afghanistan, the word war is frequently used but they are not involving Canada or our allies in an actual declared war. The words “armed conflict” help to bring things up to date in that respect.

I stress that this would in no way lower the threshold for declaring an emergency. Rather it aligns the definition with the new security environment in which wars are seldom declared, as I have said, and threats are often posed by groups other than states.

The amendment is important because a number of important powers under the National Defence Act, such as the authority to retain Canadian forces members on service beyond the date on which they are entitled to be released, are tied to the existence of an emergency as defined in the act.

The sixth and final provision that involves defence in Bill C-55 amends the clause regarding aid to the civil power. This is really the same as it was in Bill C-42. Most of the provisions are the same as they were in Bill C-42 except for the controlled access military zones.

The provisions of the bill would allow the Minister of National Defence to provide appropriate direction to the chief of the defence staff to ensure the Government of Canada has the ability to manage simultaneous or multiple requests for assistance during an emergency.

Requests for aid to the civilian authorities will continue to be made directly to the chief of defence staff.

In conclusion, we have listened to the concerns of Canadians and have presented a bill that responds to the security threats that face Canada, that protects individual rights and protects privacy. It makes us a strong partner in the international fight against terrorism. It further improves the ability of the Department of National Defence and the Canadian forces to protect Canadians from terrorism and its effects. I strongly recommend that the bill be supported.

[Gary Lunn, Canadian Alliance, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Lethbridge.

I rise today to discuss Bill C-55, the public safety act. We all live in a different world in the wake of the September 11 attacks. Legislation is needed to address the security concerns we all face, however, Bill C-55 has very serious flaws that need to be addressed if it is to become law.

This is the third attempt to put the bill before the House. The bill began as Bill C-42, which was later split into two parts, with Bill C-44 being passed earlier in the session. We are pleased that the bill was split at the time so as to allow our support for the air safety regulations in Bill C-44. Now we have Bill C-55, supposedly the new and improved version; however, the government has not addressed any of the serious issues that caused the collapse of Bill C-42. The bill remains flawed.

The government has a poor track record of controversial legislation. The species at risk act was recently pulled from the order paper after a third aborted attempt. Long awaited amendments to the Divorce Act are delayed yet again while the government tries to find a way not to offend anyone.

The government simply cannot cope with difficult legislation. Why? A government without any policy direction is revealed when called on to make policy. Its lack of ideas is exposed. When it does come up with ideas they are often not well thought out, they anger all sides of the political debate and they do not address the needs of Canadians. Worse, when it does bow to public pressure and withdraw a bad bill, which is rare, it does not make any real changes. Bill C-55 does not adequately address any of our concerns with respect to Bill C-42. Why introduce the bill at all if the government will not fix it?

My main concern with Bill C-42 was the unreasonable amount of power that was given to a handful of ministers. The Canadian Alliance believes that the powers under the Emergencies Act to declare various stages of public emergency are adequate. The Aeronautics Act also allows for ministerial discretion, but forces its ratification by parliament or cabinet within 14 days. Bill C-42 allowed cabinet ministers to unilaterally declare an emergency in an area, as a result giving them very broad enforcement powers. Those decisions did not have to be reviewed by cabinet for three months. Parliament as a whole might never have been consulted at all.

Bill C-55 purports to address this by reducing the review period from 90 days to 40 days. Imagine, he now can get his cabinet together in 45 days. It must be pretty tough to pull them all together. This is ridiculous. Both periods are equally extreme. Invoking extreme measures that limit democratic rights in Canada should be relied upon only as a last resort. When they are invoked they should be debated in parliament, not in a closed door cabinet meeting. This should happen in a matter of days, not weeks or months. Furthermore, this authority to be given to ministers is not accompanied by any specifics as to how it would be implemented. It is not indicated that ministers would be responsible for enforcing the order or, more important, that they would be accountable for it.

Frankly, Bill C-55, like Bill C-42, looks suspiciously like nothing more than another power grab. We owe it to Canadians to ensure that their civil liberties will not be suspended without very good reason and within very strict parameters. Furthermore, the sheer size and scope of Bill C-55 make discussion difficult. No single committee can be tasked with so many changes. The Canadian Alliance requests that the bill be split into sections to allow more informed, useful debate both in this place and in committee.

No one is denying that there is a need for security measures to protect Canadians. For this reason I support bringing about fair laws. Bill C-55 does address a few of these areas, and in particular the measures that would protect the jobs of the reservists when they are called into active service. That is excellent and I fully support that. This law is long overdue. We have been calling for this for some time.

We also support measures to update the Explosives Act and measures that would make terrorist hoaxes an offence. Our security personnel have a tough enough time dealing with real terrorists without having to waste valuable resources on pranksters.

Again, these are positive steps in the bill, but unfortunately the balance is not acceptable. The overwhelming power grab, not having to come back to cabinet for weeks, discussing it behind closed doors, and not even having to come before parliament, all of these are not acceptable. I would like to support this type of legislation to actually enhance and protect public safety, but the bill should be about people's protection. Instead it is more about giving more unaccountability to government. It is famous for that. The single fatal flaw in this institution is the lack of accountability of the executive of the government. This is a bill that will give them more powers with no accountability. The government is famous for allowing ministers to do as they will with no regard for the House of Commons. Bill C-55 is another classic example. Ultimately, eight months and three drafts later, the bill remains a failure. I ask the government to make significant amendments to address the faults I have outlined.

I would like to add one other point about the whole security situation with regard to September 11. The government is now collecting the $24 air tax from travellers in the country. It is having a huge impact in my riding. The Victoria airport is in my riding, which generally has short flights, and $24 is a significant burden.

Worse than that, what I learned last week was appalling. The government is scrambling to find a way to create an appearance or a perception that the travelling public is actually getting something for that $24. What is the government going to do? For any airports that have flights to the U.S. or national flights, it is going to put armed RCMP or police officers in the airport beside security so that there is a perception, and I emphasize perception, that travellers are getting something for their $24, because right now the travelling public is saying that there is not a lot of difference. They go through security and their bags go through an X-ray machine, so not a lot has changed.

The government talked about explosive detection equipment but when we actually speak to the people in the airports they tell us it will take two to three years to even order that equipment because there is such a huge backlog. Yet the government is collecting another tax and putting the money into general revenues. It is wrong. In my community there are only 24 police officers. It would take five police officers from that detachment just to man the airport. That would pull police officers off the street. Again the frustrating part is that the government is not interested in the public or in accountability. It is interested in creating a perception. It says it has to give people something for that $24 so if it throws some armed police into airports people will think they are a lot safer. It is wrong.

Let me emphasize that the biggest fatal flaw in Bill C-55 is the power grab it is giving to the ministers, with zero accountability. They do not even have to come before the House. They can wait weeks before they have to go to cabinet. That is not acceptable. Cabinet could be convened in a matter of hours, if not days. Parliament could be recalled if those kinds of extraordinary powers were necessary. Unfortunately again the government has demonstrated that when it comes to accountability it is still getting an F.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Barrie--Simcoe--Bradford.

I can agree with the opposition on one thing in this particular debate. Canadians are not generally comfortable nor used to legislating aspects of security. The issues that have followed in this country, the United States and the world following September 11 are issues that we are not familiar with. However we have an obligation as parliamentarians to ensure the safety and security of Canadians.

There is one prime obligation that all of us in every party, in every seat in this House has and that is to ensure safety for our citizens. Therefore we must take what some might call extraordinary measures.

I can appreciate the fact that some from the legal profession in this place, who at times take unfair criticism, want to debate this issue from the point of view of someone's civil rights or liberties. However I must say that I honestly believe that Canadians, who I represent and the vast majority of Canadians, understand that times have changed since September 11 and perhaps the freest country, the best democracy in the world, needs to tighten up in some areas. Perhaps we need to make some changes and people expect us to do that.

I will deal with some of the criticism that I have heard. One is that the sharing of information between the airlines, the RCMP and CSIS would open up potential abuse of people's rights. There are guidelines that would require that information to only be shared with senior designated people within those two law enforcement agencies.

The sharing of information could only be done when it related to someone who was a potential terrorist, thought to be a terrorist, a terrorist threat, or in the case of criminal activity, someone who was facing an outstanding warrant that could result in a prison sentence in excess of five years. Who would that be? The crimes that carry a sentence in excess of five years in this country are crimes like murder and kidnapping.

Are we saying it is wrong for an airline to contact the RCMP to say it has information on a passenger on an inbound flight who has an outstanding warrant for his or her arrest for murder? If people were innocent one would think they would want to face their accusers, come forward to the authorities and defend themselves. There would be a strong possibility that the individual was fleeing and did not want to be arrested. It astounds me that we would object to sharing that kind of information.

The other aspect could deal with a violation of our immigration act. If we have an outstanding deportation against individuals and they are known to be on a particular flight coming into Canada, why would we not want to share the information so that someone could be there to greet them when they disembark so we could take them into custody and thereby deport them?

We have heard cries of indignation from people opposite that our deportation system is not tough enough, that we issue deportation orders and then do not carry them out. Members know that our immigration and enforcement staff around the world are overworked. We just met this morning to discuss the results of the immigration committee travelling around the world meeting with our staff and seeing what some of the pressures are. This is a tool that could help alleviate some of those problems and could ensure that we could deal with individuals who were either facing a warrant for their arrest, or were in violation of a deportation order under the immigration act.

I find it astounding that members on either side of the House would stand up to their constituents and say they think it is too big brotherish, too much information and that the government should not have a right to gather that information.

That is ridiculous. There are safeguards in the bill. For example, if Transport Canada is given certain information, that information can be acted upon and perhaps passed on to the authorities, but then must be destroyed by Transport Canada within seven days. We are not talking about building some kind of secret file on someone, taking away someone's rights or tracking people who might be going somewhere without the knowledge of their spouse or something of that nature. We are talking about serious problems. We need to face the fact after September 11 we need to be serious.

Let me deal with another issue and that is the objections, which have come primarily from the leader of the fifth party, to the ability of a minister to issue an interim order in an emergency. The member opposite, the leader of that party, said that we already had that power under the Emergencies Act. What he has neglected to tell people is that the only way that can be implemented is if we get provincial agreement on the particular circumstance. The minister would have to get cabinet, the provinces and get everybody on side to agree before we could issue an emergency order. Is that not interesting? What would have happened following September 11 if we had to do all that before we could have closed the skies over this country, knowing that there were aircraft with potential terrorists on board?

In fact at one point, at 11 o'clock in the morning of September 11, I was sitting with the president of the Credit Valley Hospital who was informed that there was an aircraft, with a suspected hijacker in control, on its way to Pearson Airport and the hospital was put on full alert to deal with possible casualties, injured people or worse. Should our minister not have the right, given the circumstances under which we live, to act quickly? I can hear the cries of indignation and the demands for resignation if a minister failed to do so.

The other thing that is not told in this story is that the only way we can actually use the Emergencies Act is if we declare the problem to be global. Let us think about that. Certainly what happened on 9/11 was a global problem. We may not have had a problem in that regard. Let us talk about another situation. What about forcing the closing of cockpit doors? What about Health Canada in the case of a chemical attack or a problem? Should the minister not have the ability to give an order to deal with those kinds of emergencies and not get caught up in the matter of whether it is global or not, getting cabinet's approval at a meeting and getting together with the provinces to get them on side? Meanwhile we have a serious problem occurring somewhere in our country. We have an obligation to put in place a tough bill.

Another aspect of this is that the government listened. The government listened to the opposition, whether it wants to accept it or not. The government listened to members of our own caucus. The government listened to the Canadian people. It then said that Bill C-42 was perhaps too restrictive and that it did not give us the tools we needed. Therefore it withdrew Bill C-42 and submitted another bill.

This is not an admission of failure. We needed to act after September 11 and we did act. The accusations that we were slow and that we did nothing were totally unfair, uncalled for and untrue. We will continue to act with the bill to ensure that the civil rights of people are fairly balanced with a bill that gives our law enforcement agencies the tools they need to protect the Canadian public. There is nothing more sacred in the duty of a member of parliament than to live up to that obligation. I honestly believe the bill does that.

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, two or three years ago, at the conference on free trade in Quebec City, the government decided to establish a military security zone. That decision was made by the federal government, along with the Quebec government and the city of Quebec. That decision was not made unilaterally by the Minister of National Defence.

Governments have the authority to create such military zones. They did so in Quebec City, and the city was protected against violence.

I am asking the hon. member to comment on this reality, namely the fact that this government can already make decisions without the new powers included in Bill C-42 and now Bill C-55. The government can make such decisions without giving so much power to the Minister of National Defence.

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I am sure my hon. colleague will recall, we talked about the charter of rights and freedoms which is as important to Quebecers as it is to my constituents in Parkdale--High Park and all Canadians. I am sure he will recall that we proudly celebrated the charter's 20th anniversary. Perhaps he will also recall that the charter of rights was by brought in by one of the greatest Canadians who was also a Quebecer, the late Right hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau.

The hon. member will no doubt recall that the minister of justice during that period is now the Right hon. Jean Chrétien, the Prime Minister of Canada. As an architect of the charter the Prime Minister is a true democrat who knows how important the charter is. There is no doubt that our Prime Minister, the leader of the country, is the greatest believer in democracy and the greatest politician in the world. He knows how important rights, freedoms and values are. He knows what it means to be Canadian.

It is important to look at the security measures taken in the budget of 2001. We set aside money to ensure we were able to enforce and enact legislation. We set aside money to ensure intolerance was not acceptable in Canada. We need to find new programs and new ways to enhance tolerance and prevent hatred and racism.

Many people have said there is no need to have a secretary of state for multiculturalism. They say it is passé. There is no greater time than now for a strong secretary of state for multiculturalism to look at how to combat racism and hatred on a day to day basis. Last month we had an anti-racism day. It is important to remember what it means to be Canadian and how we in Canada have grown by welcoming immigrants. I am a first generation Canadian. My family immigrated to Canada in the early 1950s. We are part of the Canadian mosaic.

That is something the budget addressed as well. It is all part of democracy. It is about respecting people's rights and celebrating our diversity. This year the theme of Commonwealth Day, not just in Canada but throughout the commonwealth, was celebrating diversity. It is a wonderful thing that Canada, one of the leading Commonwealth countries, celebrates diversity. Let us look at our own country. We celebrate diversity every day. We will continue to celebrate it and ensure that hatred and racism have no place in Canada.

I will address my hon. colleague's questions about the privacy commissioner. I too woke up this morning and was interested to read the privacy commissioner's comments. It is the privacy commissioner's role to question and show concerns. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport whose committee will be examining Bill C-55 will no doubt call the privacy commissioner to the committee to give him an opportunity to explain his position. It will also give the committee the opportunity to cross examine the privacy commissioner.

It is all about healthy debate. That is important. We must remember that Bill C-55 was brought forward as a replacement to Bill C-42. Bill C-42 was withdrawn on April 24 because the government consulted with Canadians, parliamentarians and caucus and decided it was time for a better bill. We did so because we must always ensure balance. We must ensure the charter of rights and freedoms which makes us so uniquely Canadian is there to protect us. Bill C-55 must and will conform to the charter.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech made by the hon. member opposite and I have two questions for her.

But first I want to point out to her that it is true that the events of September 11 not only changed the world, but also many people's way of living, including here in Canada and in Quebec.

I remember that, a few days after the attack, everyone here said that we had to make absolutely sure that our freedoms and anything related to the charter of rights and freedoms would not be violated. In this regard, the hon. member insisted on the importance of marriage and a fair balance between the protection of citizens and their freedoms.

We are very concerned, just like the privacy commissioner, George Radwanski. Incidentally, he had reviewed former Bill C-42 and was categorically opposed to it. Today, we realize that he is also opposed to Bill C-55.

So, there is a problem in terms of that balance. There is a violation of people's privacy and we feel that the bill goes too far. So my first question to the hon. member is: what does she have to say about the comments made by the privacy commissioner, Mr. Radwanski, who said that the bill goes too far?

Also—and this is the object of my second question—the hon. member spoke very quaveringly about the Prime Minister. This week, we were stunned to see that, depending on his mood when he gets up in the morning, the Prime Minister may be a dictator one day and a great democrat the next day.

I wonder if the hon. member had the opportunity to meet the Prime Minister this morning. Perhaps she could tell us if, today, he will behave like a dictator or a great democrat.

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, I too am pleased to speak to Bill C-55, the public safety act. The public safety act 2002 is part of the Government of Canada's anti-terrorism plan which actually began with the anti-terrorism act, Bill C-36, and which was bolstered by a $7.7 billion investment in budget 2001.

Where the anti-terrorism act focused mainly on the criminal law aspects of combating terrorism, this bill addresses gaps in the federal legislative framework for public safety and protection. It is also very important to remind everyone that Bill C-55 is an improved package of public safety initiatives in support of the government's anti-terrorism plan.

While Bill C-55 retains key elements of Bill C-42, which was withdrawn on April 24, it also incorporates a number of very important improvements. It is very important to remember that the new revised bill is responding and has responded to concerns that were expressed about Bill C-42.

It is important also to remind members and Canadians of what the Minister of Transport said when he tabled the legislation in the House. He stated:

We have taken the input of parliamentarians, provinces and territories and others, and used it to significantly improve this legislation. It responds to the need for enhanced security while respecting the rights of Canadians.

It is very important that we look at that sentence. We are talking about finding a balance.

The hon. member who just spoke said that we have not taken into account the RCMP's concerns and that we have not taken into account financial institutions. We have consulted with Canadians. We have looked at the importance of being Canadian and what our values and rights are. That is what the government tries to achieve, a balance, the right balance to protect those things that are important to Canadians and to protect our charter of rights and freedoms.

The bill seeks to amend 20 acts and enacts a new one. People should know what those acts are. Included in the amendments are the Aeronautics Act, the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority Act and the Marine Transportation Security Act. There are also amendments to the criminal code but this is with respect to hoax offences. The bill also amends the Export and Import Permits Act, known as the EIPA, and the National Defence Act.

The act to be enacted is the biological and toxin weapons conventions implementation act. Before I speak about two very specific acts, it is important to talk about what the new act will do because we are actually ratifying a convention.

The new act will prohibit biological weapons and agents that do not have a peaceful purpose and will provide a more complete legal basis to regulate dual use biological agents in Canada. The new act will help to prevent the development, production, stockpiling, acquisition, transfer or use of biological weapons by states, individuals or other entities. It will supplement and reinforce Canada's existing legislation to prevent the development or transfer of biological weapons. In addition, the new amendments will set the terms and conditions of inspectors' activities in Canada, particularly in relation to their search and seizure activities.

It will be seen that Bill C-55 encompasses many things, but we must remember that it is part of our government's anti-terrorism plan. The word plan means more than one piece of legislation. It does not mean things in isolation or in silence. It is part of a comprehensive way that we are dealing with combating terrorism while at the same time protecting the rights and privacy of Canadians.

I would like to talk about two specific acts which fall within the responsibility of the Minister of Natural Resources, the National Energy Board Act and the Explosives Act. Earlier this morning I heard our colleagues in the Alliance Party commend the government for its amendments to the Explosives Act.

It might be trite to remind people that the terrorist attacks of September 11 not only changed the world but placed public security at the top of Canada's priority list. Since then the government has acted quickly and effectively on many fronts to address the serious threats resulting from these horrible events. It is also important to remember that we have acted cautiously. The Prime Minister is to be commended for how he dealt with the situation immediately after September 11.

Natural Resources Canada responded by working immediately with the Canadian energy industry to implement very appropriate security measures. Regulatory agencies, including the National Energy Board and the department's explosives administration, worked immediately to safeguard Canadian interests and ensure the security of Canada's energy systems and infrastructure.

With the proposed changes outlined in Bill C-55, Natural Resources Canada is taking further measures to enhance the safety and security of Canadians. Just as an aside, what motivates the government to pass this legislation and to have an anti-terrorism plan is to enhance the safety and security of Canadians, our citizens, whom we as parliamentarians have a duty to protect.

Natural Resources Canada administers the federal Explosives Act and the regulations. The act regulates the importation, manufacture, storage and sale of commercial explosives along with aspects of their transportation. The department's primary mandate is to ensure the health and safety of workers in the industry and of the Canadian public first and foremost.

As I mentioned earlier, in the December 2001 budget the government made a substantive investment of $7.7 billion to ensure the safety and security of Canadians. This budget funding will underwrite the legislative amendments that are proposed in Bill C-55.

The proposed amendments to the Explosives Act are contained in part 6 of Bill C-55. They will enable us to enhance the security of our domestic explosives industry and, I cannot say this often enough, ensure the safety of Canadians. They will strengthen the federal government's role in regulating the acquisition, possession and exportation of explosives. As well they will implement tougher security measures related to the manufacture, storage and transportation of explosives. For example, in transit and export controls combined with the import controls that currently exist under the Explosives Act will greatly improve the security of explosives shipments during transport.

The amendments will also help to bring Canada in line with the Organization of American States Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives and Other Related Materials which we signed in 1997. The act will now define what illicit trafficking is so that it captures the type of activity that can lead to the acquisition of explosives by criminals or terrorists.

New sections will address security measures, record keeping and the exchange of information for the purposes of tracing, identifying and preventing the illicit manufacture or the illicit trafficking of explosives. What we have to remember is that we are targeting illicit activities, we are targeting terrorist activities. We are not targeting honest, hardworking, everyday Canadians.

Enhanced controls over the acquisition and possession of explosives and their precursors would deter terrorists from using Canada as a place to prepare and launch terrorist attacks. The new possession controls would identify and deter individuals who posed a risk from having access to explosives.

A further deterrent to unlawful explosive activities would be the bill's changes to the penalty structure to bring penalties into line with those already in force under Canadian law for other serious crimes. The important thing is that explosive precursors such as ammonium nitrate would need tighter controls. As members will recall, ammonium nitrate was a key ingredient in the tragic Oklahoma City bombing. Bill C-55 would regulate such chemicals under the Explosives Act. The bill's intent is to prevent acquisition for unlawful purposes while ensuring ready access for legitimate agricultural use. It is about balance.

The proposed amendments to the Explosives Act would put Canada on the leading edge of explosives control. We would be seen around the world as taking a leadership role in protecting and securing our explosives supply. Moreover, Canada would be well placed to actively participate and lead in discussions about potential international control measures.

The proposed legislative changes illustrate the government's commitment to public security and the fight against terrorism. They illustrate its commitment to be a leader on the international scene in the fight against terrorism.

I will turn my attention to part 12 of Bill C-55 which proposes amendments to the National Energy Board Act. Currently the National Energy Board has a mandate to regulate the safety of interprovincial and international pipelines and international power lines. In working with industry the National Energy Board has institutionalized rigorous standards in maintenance practices to ensure the integrity and safety of the national pipeline system.

The proposed amendments to the National Energy Board Act would provide the board with clear statutory authority with respect to the security of installations. First, the board would be given the authority to order a pipeline company or certificate holder for an international power line to take measures for the security of the pipeline or power line. Second, it could make regulations respecting security measures. Third, it could keep security information confidential both in board hearings and in orders. Fourth, it would advise the Minister of Natural Resources on issues related to the security of pipelines and international power lines. Fifth, it could waive the publication requirements for applications to export electricity or construct international power lines if there was a critical shortage of electricity caused by a terrorist activity.

The board's inspectors would be given additional authority to make orders with respect to security matters. The ability of the National Energy Board to keep sensitive industry security information confidential is essential to the exercise of regulatory responsibilities for security. The amendments therefore contain a provision enabling the National Energy Board to take measures to protect information in its proceedings or in any order.

There are two tests for exercising this authority. First, the board must be satisfied there is a real and substantial risk that disclosure of information would impair the security of pipelines or international power lines or the methods used to protect them. Second, the board must be satisfied that the need to protect the information outweighs the public interest of having it disclosed. Again we are talking about balance.

The regulated companies have been co-operative in ensuring strengthened security arrangements are in place. They continue to operate at a heightened level of awareness to potential threats. The National Energy Board will continue to work co-operatively with industry in ensuring appropriate levels of security are maintained into the future. The amendments to the National Energy Board Act would provide the board a clear statutory basis for regulating the security of energy infrastructure under its jurisdiction.

Bill C-55 would amend 20 acts. I have been able to touch on at least two of them that the opposition and Canadians in general will have a hard time arguing with. The changes would be for the security and safety of Canadians. They would strike a balance. Bill C-55's amendments to the National Energy Board Act and the Explosives Act would contribute to the safety and well-being of Canadians. They would provide us with better tools to address and protect ourselves from terrorism.

Last year at this time terrorism was something we watched on television and in the movies. After September 11 the world changed. Canadians must respond to the changed world. We as parliamentarians must do everything we can to protect Canadians while ensuring the values which are so important and dear to us remain.

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and participate in the debate on Bill C-55. As has already been mentioned, Bill C-55 amends 19 different acts of parliament and would enact or enforce an international treaty.

What are the goals of the legislation? We need to draw to the attention of Canadians and to the House that this is another one of those omnibus pieces of legislation. It is a mixture of good, bad and ugly. Some parts of Bill C-55 are good but it is mainly made up of the bad and ugly.

The legislation proposes to make air rage an offence and to strengthen security at restricted areas in airports. It would require transportation companies to provide information on the passengers who will be travelling on their modes of transportation. It would criminalize terrorist hoaxes. It would provide for more control over explosive and sensitive exports. It would provide the name of controlled access military zones and would implement the biological and toxin weapons convention.

In the opinion of the official opposition, it is inadequate legislation inasmuch as it would enact half measures and would undemocratically empower cabinet ministers without any regard to the checks and balances offered by parliamentary review and scrutiny.

Bill C-55, like its predecessor Bill C-42, retains government rule by executive orders, a method of ruling that the government finds comfortable. The only difference is that the new bill would require cabinet ministers to have their decisions reviewed by cabinet within 45 days as opposed to the 90 days that Bill C-42 proposed.

Within 15 days parliament would be informed, not consulted and not questioned, of the decision that would already have been made by cabinet or a minister. Effectively the provision negates parliamentary or judicial scrutiny, a necessary procedure to safeguarding civil liberties and the rights that Canadians enjoy.

These powers are indicative of the Liberal Party, a government that has little respect for openness and transparency.

We have already talked to some degree about the 1985 Emergencies Act. In my opinion, not necessarily the opinion of all here, the Emergencies Act lends sufficient means to combat terrorism while effectively balancing safety concerns with freedoms. It grants the government the power to declare emergencies and to take the steps it deems appropriate but only for a limited period of time, steps that are, I might add, subject to a full parliamentary review.

Despite the cosmetic changes, we remain opposed to these interim orders which, in the view of the opposition, is nothing more than a power grab.

The amendments in part 4 of Bill C-55 are a little different because this is omnibus legislation. Part 4 amends the criminal code by making hoaxes regarding terrorist activity an offence. This section is completely unnecessary inasmuch as it does absolutely nothing to deter terrorist activities or to enhance public safety, which is supposed to be the thrust of the legislation. Any hoax, whether it is in regard to a bomb threat, to organized criminal activity, to a terrorist activity that endangers or threatens public safety or heightens public anxiety or causes the public to be frightened or concerned about a hoax, should be deemed an offence and the criminal code should be amended to make sure that is covered.

In my opinion the criminal code amendment is more about political correctiveness than it is about criminal behaviour. We are talking about hoaxes. It is more about being politically correct. It is more about the government looking like it is doing something when in fact it is doing next to nothing to combat terrorism and thwart terrorist operatives from using this country as a staging ground for terrorism.

These particular amendments in the public safety act, 2002 do nothing to prevent terrorist attacks or to protect Canadians, which the government professes that the bill should do. This is particularly disturbing given the recent warnings of the head of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, CSIS.

On Monday of this week, CSIS director, Ward Elcock, warned participants at a terrorism and technology conference in British Columbia that Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network has trained enough terrorists to pose a threat for years. He stated:

Given what we know about the number of individuals who have gone through bin Laden/al-Qaeda terrorist training camps, and the fact that many are now entrenched around the world, even though their capacity has been degraded or disrupted, it will take some time, perhaps years, to deal with those elements and assure ourselves that the threat has been defeated.

Mr. Elcock also warned:

Canada has moved beyond being used strictly for logistical or support activities by terrorist organizations and there is now a demonstrated willingness by certain groups to use Canada as a staging ground for terrorist attacks.

These are attacks that can be launched without detection or deterrence because of technological enhanced abilities.

The head of CSIS said that Canada must establish new partnerships with industry in order to come up with new technology that is going to help track terrorism and terrorist activity. The bill does little to accomplish that end.

This is also true with regard to money laundering, and the bill deals a bit with money laundering. An international forensic accountant stated that “as law enforcers get wise to money laundering, criminals are finding ever more ingenious ways to hide their dealings”.

In essence what these two experts are saying is that we must devise new ways and means to stay ahead of criminals, particularly organized criminals and those involved in criminal activity that are there to support terrorism.

For years Canada was considered one of the best places in the world to launder money because we have the largest unprotected border in the world, which makes it easy for dirty money to pass from the United States into Canada and vice versa. Because Canada was one of the last industrialized countries to establish adequate measures to combat money laundering, it is encouraged to a certain degree by those of terrorist affiliation.

According to the solicitor general, between $5 billion and $17 billion is laundered in Canada each year. The international monetary fund estimates that worldwide money laundering ranges from $590 billion to $1.5 trillion annually, or between 2% and 5% of the entire global gross domestic product, GDP.

Optimistically, the situation was to change somewhat in Canada after October 2000 when Bill C-22's regulations came into effect. However, Wayne Blackburn, a former superintendent of the RCMP's Ontario economic crime branch and proceeds of crime experts, said that as criminals figure out that the police can now generally follow money from a drug deal and freeze and seize it if it is in a financial institution, they have come up with another way to clean money up: by using it to purchase commodities.

Money laundering is a huge concern in Canada. Drug traffickers around the world launder money. They get American dollars and transfer them into companies. They exchange them for commodities. They change dollars to pesos so they can use the currency of the country that they are involved in.

Bill C-22 requires that any cash transactions of $10,000 or more be reported to financial institutions. However, terrorists and people involved in organized crime are using the elderly to bring in and despoit money into banks in Canada. It is called “smurfing” in Canada. They are using the elderly to depost dollars into their account, what we may call dirty money, and then they take the money out and put it into terrorist activities.

There is a problem. CSIS has lost so many analysts. CSIS has lost so many investigative reporters. The number 35 has been mentioned. The bill does not adequately deal with the concerns that CSIS and others have with regard to terrorism and it should go back.

[Howard Hilstrom, Canadian Alliance, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Crowfoot.

We are here today to debate Bill C-55, an act to amend certain acts of Canada, and to enact measures for implementing the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, in order to enhance public safety. The government of course believes the legislation is perfect. Judging from the speeches I have heard today and previously the government resents legitimate criticism from the opposition parties. Bill C-55 is no different from any other legislation the government has brought in since I have been in parliament. It is inevitably flawed to the point that it needs dramatic amendments.

Bill C-55 would amend 19 acts of parliament. The government will try to deal with all this within the transport committee. It is an impossible chore for the committee. It will not end up doing a good job.

Bill C-55 has some good aspects. It would make air rage an offence. I hope it would impose a sufficient mandatory minimum penalty for that. However signs at airports already say people who commit air rage or make bomb or weapon threats around airports or on airplanes will be immediately charged. There is legislation in the criminal code that makes terrorist hoaxes an offence. However if Bill C-55 made the offence more serious and the penalties stronger, in the interest of public safety I could support it.

The control of explosives in Canada is an issue that has not been adequately dealt with. Many explosives have been stolen during break-ins, particularly by motorcycle gangs. The RCMP and other police forces have been unable to fully contain the smuggling of explosives across our borders. Criminalizing this area and having stiffer penalties is a good idea.

However the overall bill is inadequate. It is a combination of flawed elements and half measures designed to mirror U.S. legislation. It is a power grab by cabinet ministers. I will deal with that in a bit when I speak about interim measures.

With regard to transportation issues Bill C-55 is a late, pale reflection of the legislation of our American counterparts. The U.S. introduced, debated, amended and enacted much more comprehensive security legislation within eight weeks. As I said at the start, our government brought in flawed legislation, Bill C-42. It has now withdrawn Bill C-42 recognizing it did not get it right. It will argue it has now got it right but this has not happened either.

It is a funny thing. The hon. member for Scarborough--Rouge River talked about interim orders. He said if there is a train wreck a minor official in a government department can make an interim order to try to deal with the situation. This shows that the government does not fully understand the situation the world is in with the war on terrorism. If we had a terrorist attack in Canada it would be an awful lot more than an average train wreck.

I do not know what the minister and the Prime Minister will be doing on the day the media and Canadians announce that there has been a terrorist attack. I certainly hope they will not be out golfing and say “We will not be in until tomorrow because that is when we go to work. We will just let the officials take care of it”. That would be totally unacceptable. However that seems to be what the member for Scarborough--Rouge River was saying, that this would be equivalent to a train wreck and that we were not to worry about it.

The bill would invest a lot of power in the ministers and, as I have said, it should be the ministers who take the responsibility for a terrorist attack because that is a much higher level of war than we are at now. It would also give them the power to pass an immediate order equivalent to regulations passed by cabinet. These interim orders need to be approved by cabinet 40 days after they are declared. This is of course 31 days more than the current situation, which is now 14 days under the Aeronautics Act.

Given that the sweeping powers already exist in the Emergencies Act to declare a public order emergency, I cannot imagine that a terrorist act would not be considered as such when it is directed toward Canadians on Canadian soil.

The new interim orders may not really be necessary in most cases because the level of the attack will indicate that we are on a much higher level of war footing than just a small incident, almost a criminal incident.

Having made that point, I would like to talk for a moment about the interim orders that allow a minister to react to an incident. They have to notify parliament. The suggestion was made that if parliament does not sit in the summer then it would, in effect, not get notified until maybe the fall when members returned or maybe after the Queen has been here and made the throne speech for us.

I cannot imagine a government with a more ridiculous view of terrorism and war than to suggest that we would not recall parliament immediately after an attack on Canadian soil of Canadian citizens by a terrorist organization committing an act that results in death and/or bioterrorism on our agricultural sector. The idea that these officials would somehow be making these interim orders is just ludicrous.

When parliament is notified, and I would suggest it be recalled immediately, a motion should be brought forward to parliament setting out the nature of the terrorist attack and of course a full assessment of what happened. Parliament should debate and then decide whether or not an extension is needed of another 100 days.

The government continues to want to work around parliament on virtually everything, including something like a terrorist attack which is an act of war directly on Canada.

In talking about bioterrorism, the United States congress is passing a terrorist bill and a U.S. farm bill that will cripple our country's agricultural sector. The bill will severely affect our exports at the border, all under the guise of safety from agri-terrorism. This is where our legislation does not move toward harmonizing a North American response to the threat of terrorism.

As a result we will find some negative economic consequences where we are out of lockstep with the United States on the terrorist issue. I mentioned our food exports as the main one. Our exporters will need to notify the U.S. border up to 12 hours in advance of shipments of food. Delays caused will radically limit the export of time sensitive agriculture exports.

In conclusion, the government does not have the legislation right. Our critic in this regard will be bringing amendments forward and we will be debating this in committee. Hopefully the government will break the legislation up so committees can study it fully and with full thought and bring back appropriate amendments that will in fact make the legislation as good as it should be.

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Scarborough--Rouge River for his comments in regard to the bill.

When Bill C-42 was brought forward, obviously the opposition pointed out the inadequacies of that bill. We commend the government for recognizing that it was a huge infringement on rights and that it would not satisfy the terrorist threat. We believe the government has come back with another bill that shows half measures. However, I was encouraged by the comment of the member for Scarborough--Rouge River in which he suggested that because the bill is dealing with transportation issues in only one-third of it, the bill would receive better scrutiny before the justice committee. I think that was how he worded it.

Therefore my first question for the member is this: Is he telling us that he will support the amendment brought forward by the opposition to do exactly that, to move the bill from the transport committee to the justice committee?

My other question relates to my concerns about the bill as brought forward by the hon. member when he mentioned that interim orders need not be brought down by a cabinet minister but by a government official. The bill gives specific definitions of who the ministers are. In one part it refers to the Minister of Transport or the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Again our concern is that we are seeing an eroding of parliamentary process and accountability. What is explained in the bill is that it is a minister of a certain department. Now he explains that it is not even that but a government official, so someone who is not even an elected member can invoke these interim orders. Is that how we should understand it?

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this important debate. I want to pay tribute to all of my colleagues who have spoken previously. They have brought a great deal of sensibility and reasonableness to the debate. They have raised issues of great importance that have been left unanswered essentially by the bill itself and which were left unanswered by the minister when he spoke.

The Minister of Transport stood in the House at the beginning of the debate and said that the bill is the essence of parliamentary democracy. That is how he described it. I would qualify the statement by saying that the bill is the essence of Liberal parliamentary democracy because it completely bypasses parliament.

Perhaps it is an attempt to further concentrate some of the arbitrary power in the hands of government and more specifically the minister but it is certainly the opposite of parliamentary democracy. It was referred to at one point as drive-by democracy or perhaps fast food democracy. That might be a more appropriate way of characterizing what we have before us in Bill C-55.

I would not go so far as to say what the federal privacy commissioner has said in terms of describing it. He used the term totalitarian in discussing aspects of the legislation.

Certainly there are troubling elements. There are elements that seem consistent with the Prime Minister's continual contempt for parliament and attempts to bypass any sort of process of review or any check or balance on his powers. It is consistent with his style of executive decree and making decisions unilaterally and simply not being able to justify them.

The bill is one which in time will get the scrutiny it deserves. It is fair to say that Canadians are intelligent enough and able enough to decide for themselves whether these steps are necessary, whether the bill will in fact violate their fundamental rights.

A huge unanswered and unaddressed issue keeps coming back time and again from the time we saw the first incarnation of this bill as Bill C-42. That is the fundamental question of is it necessary, do we need it right now? I would say there are parts of the bill that arguably we do need. However when we saw the first incarnation, Bill C-42, we knew it was coming in the wake of a very tragic event that invoked strong emotions and a strong sense of instability among countries, including our own.

An hon. member from British Columbia, the transport critic for the Alliance Party, talked about the fact that Bill C-36, the criminal code amendments, another omnibus bill, brought together certain excessive responses given the circumstances. It received a lot of scrutiny in the House and a lot of concern even from members of the government.

However it was not until a full two months later that we saw Bill C-42. Then the government skated. The government delayed. It went to great lengths to not bring the bill forward. It was debated for a very short time in the House and then it was sloughed off and put on the back burner until after Christmas. As people started to look at it more closely in the light of day in a more rational time, it became apparent that the bill was fatally flawed.

We have gone through the examination. The critic for the Alliance took us through a detailed analysis of why the government carved out a certain aspect of it to meet with American legislation and regulations that we had almost overlooked. We almost missed the time line because of the sloppiness and the convoluted, cumbersome method in which that legislation was drafted. The government took to its scrapers and had to rush to pull an element out and draft a new bill which was passed through the House very quickly.

It is indicative again of the lack of consultation not only with the stakeholders which is important but with other parliamentarians as well. They should be given the respect they deserve by consulting with them to see if there are ways in which legislation could be passed in a more effective non-partisan way.

Let us be very clear that the bill is another seriously flawed piece of Liberal legislation. It is a slap in the face to those who value their privacy, their rights of protection of property rights and many other fundamental democratic rights.

In the wake of September 11 it was understandable that the legislation that was brought forward and which was on the drawing board might go to extreme measures. In the shadow of such a threat, reflecting on the legislation is extremely important. That is part of what we do. It is part of what we should be expected to conduct.

The arbitrariness of the decision making found in the legislation and the decision making process itself is palpable. It will permeate and permit further war measures like activities within the country. That word should not be thrown around lightly. We should not get into the habit of hyperbole when we talk about the War Measures Act.

I would like to briefly give a comparison between the Emergency Measures Act and Bill C-55, just so we have it in context. Bill C-55 has no other objective than to give ministers arbitrary power that would come in the face of a real threat, an issue that was going to no doubt disrupt and perhaps put Canadian lives in peril. However we already have legislation on the books today, the Emergency Measures Act, that allows for a very swift and decisive response.

The Emergency Measures Act is a declaration of emergency. It becomes effective immediately upon proclamation, immediately upon the government declaring that such a state exists. It also goes to parliament within seven, not 45, but seven sitting days. If parliament is not sitting, parliament shall be recalled. That is reasonable.

Parliament debates the declaration of emergency immediately and can vote it down if it decides to do so. Every order or regulation that would come out of the Emergency Measures Act must go to parliament within two sitting days. There is an exception for exempt or classified orders. That is reasonable in the circumstances if the military so determines, but they are sent directly to an all party parliamentary review committee which would be sworn to secrecy. Parliament can revoke or amend any order or regulation.

That is the state of the current legislation. That is a summary of what is currently available and in the hands of government in the wake of an emergency.

By comparison what Bill C-55 will do also comes into effect immediately but no declaration of emergency is required to be proclaimed by parliament beforehand. Parliament is out of the loop. Parliament has no vote on the existence or the determination of the emergency, nor are interim orders to be tabled in the House until the first 15 days on which the House is sitting after the interim order is made. There is no debate in parliament. Parliament cannot revoke or amend any interim order.

Under the Emergency Measures Act parliament is the place where the orders are debated, amended, defeated, approved and reviewed. The government would be accountable to parliament. Under Bill C-55 parliament is the place where orders are simply published. We become a clearing house, a publishing place for the government's decisions. The government is not accountable under Bill C-55.

Putting this much power in the hands of a minister does nothing to benefit Canadians. On the other hand it does a great deal to give more arbitrary power. It also cloaks the government in greater secrecy as to what it is doing. It also bypasses the scrutiny that would be expected in most circumstances.

The interim orders that are made by the minister and the minister alone without parliamentary approval can remain in place for 23 days in secret. No one would know that they had been invoked. They can be in effect for 45 days without any cabinet approval. Forty-five days; it is ridiculous to think that the cabinet would not convene within 45 days if a national emergency took place.

The orders can be invoked by a person unnamed, unknown, but designated by the minister. Unless specified in the order, the order can be in effect for a year and if the minister so chooses, it can be renewed for at least another year. Where is the balance? Where is the scrutiny? Why is the Prime Minister and the minister so intent on avoiding parliamentary scrutiny? Why are they displaying this continued contempt for the House?

We know what happens when things go awry and there is a report to be prepared or a committee to look at things. It is simply thrown on a shelf. That is what happens.

Or if there is an investigation like we saw at the APEC inquiry, a public inquiry, the Prime Minister simply can choose not to go, or the minister himself might just say that he does not think he will go there to account for what he has done.

The changes from Bill C-42 that we see now before us in Bill C-55 are what I would deem a slight improvement, but once again parliament and the public are relegated to the back seat. It seems that parliament increasingly is becoming an afterthought and an irritation to the government.

Changes to the National Defence Act are a perfect example. Here we have a minister who in the past has demonstrated that he has been less than forthright to parliament, his party, his caucus and even the Prime Minister, although I think in fairness we may have found that it was probably fair to say the Prime Minister was briefed and chose to let the defence minister twist in the breeze. This minister hardly inspires confidence that this minister or a person he deems suitable should be making those decisions. It is that decision making power that I think Canadians and parliamentarians here on the opposition side certainly question.

In that instance we had a circumstance in which Canadian soldiers should have been given accolades. Yet what we saw was this public debate and debacle over questions. Did we take hostages or did we not? Were the hostages handed over or were they not? Was the Prime Minister told or was he not? That should have been a moment of pride, yet it was stolen by some of the stumbling and bumbling of the minister. It took three briefings to get up to speed before something clicked and yet the Prime Minister wants him to have the ability to declare unchecked, uncontrolled access to declaring a military zone somewhere in the country.

The Liberals say that they would consent to a short term extension if we wanted to finish this debate today, so I wonder if I might ask the Chair if we would be prepared to do that.

Make no mistake about this. This legislation and the government can drive a tank onto a street corner or a field anywhere in the country and then at the discretion of the minister deem it to be a military zone.

Under paragraph 260.1(1)(b), “Controlled Access Military Zones”, there has to be some question as to what the government means by property. Is this real property? Is this real estate? Or is it property in terms of equipment such as a main battle tank or a military vehicle or perhaps even one of our embattled Sea Kings which the Prime Minister of course is refusing to replace because of his hardheadedness and his previous decision to cancel them? I would suggest the answer to this question about the definition of a military zone is found in proposed subsection 260.1(3), where the designation of the nature of the zone is stated:

A controlled access military zone may consist of an area of land or water, a portion of airspace, or a structure or part of one, surrounding a thing referred to in subsection (1) or including it, whether the zone designated is fixed or moves with that thing. The zone automatically includes all corresponding airspace above, and water and land below, the earth's surface.

That is a pretty broad definition. Pretty much any place would fit that bill. Key in that definition is the phrase “or moves with that thing”. This is the nature of the legislation. Were it to create such zones or around areas which permit permanent structures not designated as military bases, there would be no need for a clarification or classification of this type. This gives the government, or rather one minister in this instance, the ability to designate a controlled military access zone around any piece of military property if he feels it necessary to do so. As the equipment moves through the area, so goes the zone. For Canadians working long, hard hours for everything they own, a stroke of the pen would negate the expectation that a person's castle is their home.

It is totally unacceptable. We need to know that protections for private property and public property exist. There have to be greater checks and balances. The Liberals might suggest that the checks and balances are contained in proposed subsection 260.1(6) where the maximum time limit of one year is put on the zone. However, clearly we know that with more jiggery and pokery and legal wrangling, the average Canadian's--

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in the debate on Bill C-55 on behalf of the New Democratic Party. I want to follow on some comments made by my hon. colleague from the Bloc along the lines of what was needed after September 11.

Did we hear any questions after September 11 as to what the government ministers were unable to do that did not allow them to proceed and protect the security of Canadians? We have not heard of anything. In all the meetings I have attended and in all the discussions, I have not heard once that something was missing, that some legislation was missing where the ministers were not able to act responsibly.

Quite frankly we have heard there was great reaction at the airports from the workers and from the people in the communities. In spite of all the tragedy that was taking place and everything that was going on and the chaos in the industry, everyone responded wonderfully. That says to me that Canada has a good system in place. Good honest people throughout the country were willing to jump to the measure that was needed. They came through when everything was going on. Therefore it is hard for me to understand why we are in this situation today.

The Minister of Transport calls the bill the public safety act. How Orwellian. What a misleading name. This bill has very little to do with enhancing public safety and has everything to do with grandstanding by the Liberal government. That kind of grandstanding is very dangerous to the freedom of Canadians. It is a knee-jerk reaction to the terrible events of September 11. All the government has been capable of since September 11 is knee-jerk reactions like this bill.

This approach to public security has more to do with public relations and trying to look like the government is doing something about security than actually doing the things necessary to counter the threat of terrorism. The bill gives sweeping powers to government ministers to do whatever they want whenever they want supposedly in the name of security.

The only precedent for something like this in the history of this great democracy was the War Measures Act. The last time the War Measures Act was used was in October 1970. Hundreds of innocent Canadians were dragged from their homes, arrested and held without charge while the government tried to find a tiny group of terrorists who had assassinated Quebec cabinet minister Pierre Laporte and kidnapped a British trade envoy.

History came to show that using the War Measures Act to crush the FLQ was like using a wrecking ball to squash a fly. A fly swatter would have worked just fine and would have knocked the wall down. All the unjustified arrests of innocent people who had nothing to do with the FLQ terrorists shook Canadians' faith in their government. It showed us just how fragile our freedom really is.

At least the War Measures Act was repealed after the FLQ was crushed. However this bill is like a permanent War Measures Act. It allows government ministers to issue executive orders covering a huge range of areas anytime they want to. These orders have the force of law the moment the minister signs them. This kind of power in the hands of one individual is unheard of in a democracy like Canada.

Normally when a minister wants to make a change or a regulation, he or she has to go through a process that involves public consultation and a regulatory impact study. The change then has to be approved by cabinet. Again I remind everyone that there has not been a single indication that ministers were not able to respond on September 11.

With this bill the Liberal government is saying it wants to bypass the democratic process and issue decrees at its whim. That means no public input and no impact study. The government says it will only use these new powers in an emergency but here is the kicker: there is absolutely no accountability to the public when a minister uses his or her power. When ministers make one of the decrees that this bill allows them to make, they never have to explain to the public why they did it. They can just do it and never have to explain themselves.

One of the great legislators and statesmen of the 20th century was Senator William Proxmire who represented the people of Wisconsin in the United States senate for over three decades. He once said “Power always has to be kept in check; power exercised in secret, especially under the cloak of national security is doubly dangerous”. Those words were especially meaningful coming from Senator Proxmire because he was elected to the U.S. senate in the seat vacated by Senator Joseph R. McCarthy in 1957.

Senator McCarthy is of course known for McCarthyism, the time in the 1950s when America tore itself apart looking for communists. Like the Canadian government did to hundreds of suspected FLQ terrorists under the War Measures Act, McCarthyism wrongly persecuted thousands of innocent Americans who had absolutely nothing to do with communism.

When Senator Proxmire, McCarthy's successor, spoke those words about the need to keep power in check and about how power exercised in secret under the cloak of national security was doubly dangerous, America was just coming to grips with the mistakes and excesses of the McCarthy era. He did not want Americans to forget the hard lessons they had learned in the McCarthy era about how fragile their freedom was.

Canadians learned that lesson in October 1970. It is a real tragedy that the Liberal government has forgotten that lesson in its mad rush to look like it is doing something about terrorism since September 11.

The so-called interim order powers in the bill would give to ministers and the Minister of National Defence the power to create military zones. That is exactly what Proxmire warned us against. It would give these ministers the power to exercise in secret under a cloak of national security.

The Liberal government wants us to believe that these powers are limited. It even went as far as withdrawing the original version of Bill C-42 and reintroducing it in a slightly watered down form. That action was supposed to make us all think everything was fine now.

Canadians are supposed to be reassured because these executive orders must be reviewed by cabinet within six weeks, instead of three months under the old bill. The name of military security zones has been changed to controlled access military zones and a few vague limitations have been inserted where they can be applied. The fact remains that individual cabinet ministers can exercise these powers in secret.

There is no public accountability for the government's actions. There is no obligation to show the public that a decree issued under the authority of the bill is justified. It can do what it wants and never have to explain why. The public's ability to challenge an action taken under the legislation in the courts is also extremely limited, which removes the courts from their constitutional role as a check on executive power. The other check on executive power, namely parliament, is reduced to an afterthought.

Decrees issued under the legislation only have to be tabled in parliament 15 sitting days after they are issued and there is no authority for parliament to override them.

By sidelining parliament and the courts the Liberal government has done the other thing that Proxmire warned against, it has removed the checks and balances on power.

I cannot help but ask why the Liberal government thinks a bill as draconian as this one is necessary. Bringing in a permanent War Measures Act like this is not a rational approach to dealing with terrorism. Terrorists like Osama bin Laden are out to destroy western democracy. If our reaction to the threat of terrorism were to undermine freedom and democracy in the name of national security, as Bill C-55 does, then we would be giving the terrorists what they want. The government clearly has not thought through the consequences of what it is proposing.

In my role as the NDP transport critic I have spent the last few months fighting against another one of the Liberal government's knee jerk reactions, the new $24 government security tax on air travel. This is another case where the government acted without thinking. It imposed this huge tax on an industry that was already in deep trouble without any impact analysis whatsoever. Indeed, the government based the amount of the tax on a poll done by the ministry of finance, not a sober economic analysis, but a poll taken shortly after September 11 to see how much it could squeeze out of Canadians.

Because it acted so irrationally and introduced the tax without thinking through the consequences, tourism this summer is projected to drop over 10%. The economy is taking a huge hit because of this tax and it is putting all kinds of jobs at risk.

The worst part of all about this $24 security tax is that most of the money is not even going into airport security. The tax is just a smokescreen the government dreamed up to try to give the impression that it is improving airport security and cover for the fact that it really has no plan whatsoever. Has the problem of security guards not receiving quality training been addressed? No.

Has there been a document prepared as to what items should be checked at airport security gates? Who really believes that a nail clipper or a conductor's baton are a risk? For what possible security benefit are eye shadow compacts being checked or pages of a Bible and pages in a folder being flipped through after the items have gone through x-ray? Is this the transport minister's answer to security? It is a farce. However if one questions him about the security that he has in place he cannot tell us because it is too secret.

In that sense Bill C-55 is exactly like the airport security tax. It is obvious that the Liberal government has no idea what to do about the threat of international terrorism. If it had any kind of plan for dealing with terrorism it would have a bill full of specifics. Instead it has written itself a blank cheque. It has as much as admitted that it does not know what to do about terrorism.

With the bill the government is saying, to give it a bunch of sweeping powers to bypass the entire democratic decision making process to do whatever it wants if it thinks there might be a security threat. That is not how we protect the public. We protect the public by being proactive, by identifying risks and threats and doing something about them before they threaten the public.

To be fair there are specifics in the bill that the NDP supports. We support provisions to fight money laundering by terrorist groups. We support the new criminal offences for bomb threats and the implementation of international conventions to fight the proliferation of biological weapons, explosives and people smuggling by organized crime.

Unfortunately these are just tangents to the main thrust of the bill, a blank cheque for government ministers to do whatever they want. There are plenty of proactive things the government could do to make us safer from terrorism, rather than this blank cheque approach. It could give more resources to the RCMP, to CSIS and to the military. It could tighten things up at the border and work to improve the ability of Canada customs and immigration to do background checks. Like the lack of specifics in the bill, the government's failure to take any proactive steps to stop terrorism betrays its lack of a plan.

The privacy commissioner has also indicated his grave concerns with the bill. Those I know will be discussed further in committee. The controlled access military zones without absolute specifics as to when they could be applied does little to alleviate the fear Canadians have that they would be applied any time the government wanted to infringe on the democratic rights of freedom of expression and the right to assemble and protest. We should not forget the actions taken at APEC.

I want to comment on how strange it is that a bill dealing with public safety in a variety of different areas, and we have all recognized that it is quite the omnibus bill, would be referred to the transport committee. One of the greatest problems of the bill is the infringement on the civil liberties and democratic rights of Canadians and the bill is being referred to the transport committee.

The bill deals with the Aeronautics Act; the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority Act; the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999; the Criminal Code of Canada; the Department of Health Act; Explosives Act; Export and Import Permits Act; the Food and Drugs Act; Hazardous Products Act; Marine Transportation Security Act; National Defence Act; National Energy Board Act; the Navigable Waters Protection Act; Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act; Pest Control Products Act; Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act; Quarantine Act; Radiation Emitting Devices Act; and we have another one, the Canada Shipping Acts.

Does this sound like a transportation issue? Is this the committee that should be taxed with dealing with the civil liberties of Canadians, the greatest infringement of the bill, and the right of military access zones to infringe on the democratic rights of Canadians? I do not think so.

The bill says to me that a weak government would pass a blatantly undemocratic piece of legislation that puts no faith in the people of Canada and no respect for the people of Canada. The bill may satisfy the Liberal government's pollsters and spin doctors who say the government has to do something, anything so that it can say that it has done something about security.

The bill will not satisfy the real need to take a proactive approach to eliminating terrorism. The cost of Bill C-55 to our democratic freedom is far too high. I hope the government and all members in the House will take note of that and make sure that the bill does not pass.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, in this bill, the expression “reasonably necessary” is used four times to define size. The dimensions of the zone are set out in paragraph (4):

(4) The dimensions of a controlled access military zone may not be greater than is reasonably necessary—

And:

(6) A designation or renewal may not be for a period longer than is reasonably necessary—

What will the time limit be for that zone and what area will it cover? Under what conditions do we give to a single individual the authority to determine what is reasonably necessary? One must hope that it will be a reasonable person because, otherwise, we could find ourselves in a bad spot, and that is exactly what is happening.

In Quebec, it is clear what the Bloc Quebecois is asking for will remain unchanged. I hope the other parties will understand that, to preserve a degree of control, the provinces must be consulted and the federal government must obtain their consent, and that applies not only to the Quebec government and the Quebec people, but also to all other provincial governments.

We cannot have controlled access military zones in Quebec without the Quebec government's consent. That is the reality.

That leads us to the last part of the bill. It is not complicated. There are a few paragraphs that give the legislation all its meaning. I could explain, for the benefit of our fellow citizens, the Quebecers who are listening, why the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to those controlled access military zones. Some might have questions for us.

For example, paragraph (12) states:

(12) The Canadian Forces may permit, control, restrict or prohibit access to a controlled access military zone.

So, they are the ones controlling everything that is going on in that area. Moreover, paragraph (14) states:

(14) No action for loss, damage or injury lies by reason only of the designation of a controlled access military zone or the implementation of measures to enforce the designation.

Not only the military will restrict our movements and control us within that zone, but citizens arrested or prevented from functioning or under arrest will have no recourse against the government, and that in spite of the statements made by the defence minister who is telling us “Yes, recourse through the courts is always available to them”.

Give me a break. Once again, I am pleased to read this text, which does state:

(14) No action for loss, damage or injury lies by reason only of the designation of a controlled access military zone or the implementation of measures to enforce the designation.

One can always go before the court to challenge the military zone. That is what the defence minister is telling us. “You can challenge it”. Yes, we can challenge a military zone. But, in the meantime, citizens, Quebecers will be arrested, imprisoned and will have no recourse against the federal government. They will be stripped of their rights and liberties, and they will have no recourse. Again, this is what the federal government wants to do.

This is an attempt by the government, the officer corps or the land staff to centralize in the hands of the defence minister and his staff the power to control more and more the movements of individuals and groups which may want to protest.

They will not be able to protest near a building, a defence facility or piece of equipment, not even near an army vehicle. They will not be able to do that anymore.

They will not be able to protest if someone in the federal government feels threatened. This person will ask the military staff to make a recommendation to the defence minister, who, in my opinion, has not been a reasonable person up until now. The defence minister will then have the power to designate military zones, presumably to protect the interests of the government, all this to the detriment of the interests, rights and liberties of our fellow citizens.

I would like to close by commenting on the third part, which deals with providing personal information. We recall Bill C-42 and wonder why a government would withdraw a bill. Once again, it is because of what the opposition did, and the fierce battle led by the leader of the Bloc Quebecois and all of the members from our party against Bill C-42. We saw that the government appeared to back down.

However, the big question raised at the time that made the government back down—we all remember it—was when we asked the Prime Minister , “What were you not able to do after September 11 that you could have done if you had had Bill C-42?”

The same question applies today. What is the Canadian government not able to do if ever a situation like September 11 were to occur, which would be the worst incident in the history of Canada? What is it that it could not do then, and therefore could still not do today, that it could do with Bill C-55?

We could not get an answer today from the Prime Minister, nor from the Minister of National Defence, nor from the Minister of Transport in his speech. Nobody answered us. When one is politically strong, as is the Liberal government right now, riding high in the polls, everything is fine, everything is coming up roses,and one becomes arrogant. This is what happens when one is arrogant. Mistakes are made, bad bills are introduced. Slight changes are made, and the bill comes back with four more pages than it used to have.

This is how it works, and the government thinks that people will swallow it. The Prime Minister said yesterday in a scrum, “There are days when I am a dictator, and other days when I am not a dictator”. This is what he said yesterday. Unbelievable. This is in Canada, and our Prime Minister said in a press scrum, “Today I am not a dictator, but tomorrow I will be a dictator. I am the one who decides”.

In the end, he is the one who decides. He decided to introduce Bill C-55. He decided that with his Liberal majority, he would succeed in showing that he was right and that, in any case, people will have no other choice. They will accept it and the Liberal Party will not suffer in the polls. This is the reality. This is why we have to deal with Bill C-55 today.

When we questioned the government about Bill C-42 on November 22, 2001, we were told that there were two important elements in this bill. First, there was the information required by the Americans so that Canadian airlines could fly over their territory. The whole section dealing with personal information was taken out of Bill C-42. It became Bill C-44. Bill C-42 had a whole section dealing with immigration. Our listeners will have understood, after watching 60 Minutes , that there are problems with immigration in Canada. Despite anything the immigration minister may say, there is a problem. As some would say, there is a certain uneasiness about the whole issue.

Once again, they took out the part on immigration and introduced Bill C-11 on immigration. That is fine, we supported it. We supported Bill C-44. In fact, this is what the government needed after September 11. It needed a bill that would allow it to give the Americans the personal information they require so that our airline companies could fly over their territory.

But believe it or not, in Bill C-44, the list of information that the American government requires from the airline companies in title 130 of its act, which is equivalent to ours, is not the same list. They require about 15 items. I will come back to this later.

We are having fun today, we are reacting, but in the coming weeks we will have the opportunity to talk about this list. However, Canada is asking for about 20 items of information more than the Americans. This is the reality. We must provide personal information and a schedule was made and tabled.

This schedule is designed to please public officials, who are asking for an increasingly controlling and centralizing state as regards people's privacy. They asked for things that the Americans are not asking for. These things are in the schedule. This is what the minister was telling us. From now on, airlines will be required to provide personal information to authorities. I will say to which authorities, but first I want to read part of the schedule. Perhaps I should begin by reading an excerpt of the act, so people will believe me. We must be careful with the Liberals. They may well claim that I am wrong.

This government's legislation reads as follows:

The Minister, or any officer of the Department of Transport authorized by the Minister for the purposes of this section, may, for the purposes of transportation security, require any air carrier or operator of an aviation reservation system to provide the Minister or officer, as the case may be, within the time and in the manner specified by the Minister of officer, with information set out in the schedule that is in the air carrier's or operator's control concerning the persons on board or expected to be on board an aircraft.

The information that government officials wish to have includes, among other things:

The passport number of the person and, as the case may be, the visa number, or the proof of stay;

the city, country or travel covered by the passenger file;

the cities listed on the itinerary as points of departure or arrival;

the name of the user of the aircraft on board of which the person is likely to be;

the telephone number of the person;

the address of the person;

the type of payment used for the person's ticket;

as the case may be, an indication that the itinerary covered by the passenger file includes any segment that must be travelled by using an undetermined mode of transportation;

the itinerary of the trip covered by the passenger file, namely the points of departure and arrival, the codes of aircraft users, the stopovers and the land portions of the trip.

They want to know everything. When you are travelling, they want to be sure they control you. Of course, the airline company has to keep this information and disclose it to the authorities. This is always done for reasons of security.

That is the beauty of it all. The minister, or a transport department official authorizing what the minister can authorize, can obtain this information. But the government says:

Information provided under subsection(1) may be disclosed to persons outside theDepartment of Transport only for the purposesof transportation security, and it may bedisclosed only to--

When the Department of Transport requests this information, it can disclosed it to:

(a) the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration;

(b) the Minister of National Revenue;

(c) the chief executive officer of the CanadianAir Transport Security Authority;

--it does not exist yet, but it is in the works--and

(d) a person designated under subsection4.82(2) or (3).

The persons designated under subsection4.82(2) or (3) are theCommissioner ofthe Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and the Director of the CanadianSecurity Intelligence Service, or CSIS.

All the personal information mentioned on the form filled out when you buy a plane ticket to go on a trip can be shared with five or six departments, at the whim of the minister.

People will say, “Look, this is the information that the U.S. will be asking for anyway.” I said earlier that the information required by the U.S. is not the same as that required by Canada. Also, pursuant to the following provision, the government can make changes to that list.

(10) The Governor in Council may, on therecommendation of the Minister, by orderamend the schedule.

So, the minister could, on his own initiative, have a talk with the governor in council and decide to amend the list of information to be gathered by the airline company. This is serious.

Again, the government wants to gain control. I am geeting the signal that I only have a minute left, so I will conclude by giving the House an example. I hope no Quebecer and no Canadian will be flying on a plane with a suspect, because we know how things will be done.

Pursuant to this bill, for seven days, while someone is on vacation, all the departments I have just mentioned, including the revenue department, the RCMP and CSIS, will be able to investigate the suspect and determine that he or she presents a security risk. Knowing in which country this individual is, they could have him or her arrested and interrogated in a country that might not have the same respect for human rights than we have in Canada. Again, this is what the Bloc Quebecois will try to fight--

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, let us remember that, on November 22, 2001, the Government of Canada introduced, in great haste, its second public safety bill, Bill C-42. The Bloc Quebecois reacted immediately to the introduction of that bill, which constituted the worst attack ever seen by Quebecers and Canadians on their rights and freedoms.

Those who are listening to us will have understood that, since November 22, the Bloc Quebecois has vehemently opposed Bill C-42. We saw the results. Last week, the federal Liberal government withdrew Bill C-42 to introduce Bill C-55, which, believe it or not, is five pages longer than Bill C-42, which had 98 pages. Bill C-55 has 103 pages.

The Bloc Quebecois reacted strongly to this attack on human rights and freedoms from within Canada by the federal Liberal government. When dealing with terrorism, there is nothing worse than trying to counter terrorist attacks by sacrificing our rights and freedoms. It is the worst possible reaction, because the objective of the terrorist network throughout the world is actually to attack the fundamental values that made Quebec and Canada such a great democracy.

Today, I am proud to have helped, with my leader and my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, make the federal Liberal government understand that it could not take away the fundamental rights enjoyed by all Canadians. However, it was easy for us to fight Bill C-42 because the ministers who were supposed to defend that bill, namely the Minister of Transport, the Minister of National Defence and all the others—I will name them later—were not the strongest defenders of the bill. Why?

Quite simply because Bill C-42, just as Bill C-55 we are examining today, was prepared by and for public servants. How are things done in a society like ours? In any crisis situation, the government tries its best to pass legislation to achieve its old unfulfilled dreams. That is what happened with DND and its land staff, Health Canada, Transport Canada and all the other departments, which took advantage of the terrible crisis situation resulting from the September 11 events to include in Bill C-42 numerous infringements on our freedoms and rights, and yet more state control.

Such a situation brings us closer to a more militarized, centralizing and controlling state. This is what the Liberal government is trying to do, once again today, with Bill C-55. Even if it was upgraded and improved, even if the Bloc's recommendations were taken into account, it has proven impossible to escape the government machinery which, once again, attacks our rights and freedoms in Bill C-55. I will demonstrate it in a minute.

Another similarity with what happened when Bill C-42 was introduced is the fact that the Prime Minister went before the press yesterday, and with his typical candour and naivety, he could not answer one very simple question from a journalist who was asking if our rights and freedoms will be better protected under the new legislation. He answered “Yes, because I am telling you it is better”.

Once again, questions were put to the Prime Minister today and he was unable to answer them. Yesterday, it was the Minister of Defence who could not provide the answers.

In the next few minutes, I will try to summarize the purpose of this bill for the benefit of everyone in Quebec who might be watching this debate, and to show why we constantly have to badger the federal Liberal government which, in an attempt to do some nation building, has let the bureaucracy pursue its objective of centralization. We now have a centralizing state, whcih is detrimental to the rights and freedoms for which people, especially in Quebec, have fought so dearly.

Today, the Prime Minister even added in this House, “Anyway, all of these questions will be answered in committee and we will make all the appropriate revisions and changes”.

My colleague from Berthier—Montcalm knows better. On Bill C-7, he single-handedly moved more amendments and brought more witnesses before the committee than all the Liberal members from Quebec. Despite all his efforts, none of the amendments to Bill C-7 concerning young offenders was passed. Except for some very minor changes, the bill was passed almost exactly as it was introduced in the House.

So today, the Prime Minister said to us, the members from Quebec, “With respect to Bill C-55, you can ask your questions in committee, you will have the chance to call witnesses, and we can make changes when the time comes”.

For all those Quebecers who are listening, for all those groups who appeared before my colleague from Berthier—Montcalm's committee to comment on Bill C-7, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, I regret to inform them that it is not true that significant changes can be made in the House.

There was consensus in Quebec and, believe it or not, the new Minister of Justice, the member for Rosemont, from Quebec, succeeded in forcing Bill C-7 on Quebecers, once he was elected. This despite the fact that the day after his nomination, he told the media that he would meet with all of the groups and representatives in Quebec that are affected, and he did not do this.

This is the reality of this centralizing federal Liberal government, which, once again, with Bill C-55, has used its political power to take away rights and freedoms from Quebecers and Canadians.

Allow me to provide some examples, as the Prime Minister, the Minister of Transport and all of the other ministers should have done to explain Bill C-55. Given that there are three sections of this bill, as the Minister of Transport was saying, as far as I am concerned, it should have been divided into as many bills.

Yet again, the government is using a bill that is almost an omnibus bill, with 20 different parts, a bill that amends more than 10 acts, in an attempt to push through a bill that is packed with provisions that violate people's rights and freedoms.

For the benefit of Quebecers and Canadians who are listening, as the Minister of Transport said, there are three main sections to this bill. I will comment on them in the order that he presented them.

The first part concerns the ministerial power to make interim orders. I will give the list of the ministers who are involved. Anyway, the wording is the same for all amended statutes. The provisions are very lengthy, but the principle is always the same. Every time a minister is granted the power to make an order, he is subjected to the same standards and restrictions, but our rights and freedoms are also violated in the same way.

Here is the list of the ministers who are mentioned in the bill, with the title of the statutes being amended. The Department of Health Act and the Food and Drugs Act are administered by the Minister of Health. The Hazardous Products Act, the Safety Act, and the Navigable Waters Protection Act are under the responsibility of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The Pest Control Products Act and the Quarantine Act are administered by the Minister of Health. The Radiation Emitting Devices Act and the Canada Shipping Act are administered by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and the Canada ShippingAct, 2001, by the Minister of Transport.

Major amendments are made to all these statutes, and each of the ministers responsible will get new powers I will specify.

Let us take for example the Minister of Health and the Department of Health Act. The same provisions are repeated for all the other statutes and for all the other departments.

Here is clause 33, amending the Department of Health Act, at section 11.1:

The Minister may make an interim order that contains any provision that may be contained in a regulation made under section 11 if the Minister believes that immediate action is required to deal with a significant risk, direct or indirect, to health or safety.

This therefore confers on a minister the authority to make interim orders. For all the ministers I have listed so far, and all the laws they administer, they have been authorized to make interim orders, which have regulatory force. This is not done just any old way.

Subsection 4 of clause 11 reads:

An interim order is exempt from the application of sections 3, 5 and 11 of the Statutory Instruments Act and published in the Canada Gazette within twenty-three days after it is made.

What has just been given to the ministers, including the Minister of Health, is the power to enact interim orders with regulatory force and without the constraints of the Statutory Instruments Act sections 3, 5 and 11. It is worthwhile quoting the sections in question, which enable a minister such as the Minister of Health—I will give an example shortly—to make interim orders with regulatory force and no obligation. For instance, section 3 reads as follows:

Subject to any regulations made pursuant to paragraph 20(a), where a regulation-making authority proposes to make a regulation, it shall cause to be forwarded to the Clerk of the Privy Council three copies of the proposed regulation in both official languages.

Thus there will no longer be a requirement to forward them promptly to the Clerk of the Privy Council.

On receipt, the Clerk of the Privy Council, in consultation with the Deputy Minister of Justice, shall examine the proposed regulation to ensure that: it is authorized by the statute pursuant to which it is to be made; it does not constitute an unusual or unexpected use of the authority pursuant to which it is to be made; it does not trespass unduly on existing rights and freedoms and is not, in any case, inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights.

This is what is termed the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms filter.

Now, these interim orders by the ministers of Health, Transport, Fisheries and Oceans and the others, including Environment, in compliance with the laws I have listed, will no longer have to gain approval or be filed in three copies with the Clerk of the Privy Council for the text to be examined in light of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the framework of the enabling legislation.

Let me give an example. During the September 11 crisis, the Minister of Health bought generic drugs, this in violation of the Patent Act and the patent held by the Bayer company. So, the minister awarded a contract to a company called Apotex. This action was brought up in the House and it was questioned, because it did not comply with the Patent Act. Of course, the Minister of Health argued the decision was not his, that he had simply raised the issue with his officials and they had made the big decision.

Under Bill C-55, the Minister of Health will now have the power to make interim orders whereby public officials would have the mandate to acquire drugs. In the example that I gave, the drugs were bought to counter the effects of anthrax, but it could be any drug to fight any disease. These drugs could be bought without checking who owns the patents for them and, again, without ensuring that all is done in compliance with the charter of rights and freedoms.

With these interim orders, the responsibility of making decisions that may involve public funds and have major consequences on individual rights and freedoms rests solely with one person, namely the minister. He could force the whole population to get a vaccine and take medication. Let us not forget that, in our society, there are communities and individuals who are subject to restrictions with respect to the consumption of drugs, among other things.

All this went unnoticed. However, what I just read is the same text that was in Bill C-42. In the new Bill C-55, the following was added regarding interim orders:

5.1(3) An interim order has effect from the time that it is made but ceases to have effect on the earliest of

(a) 45 days after it is made, unless it is approved by the Governor in Council,

Before, in Bill C-42, it was 90 days. Now, we are told 45 days, and the following is added:

5.1(7) A copy of each interim order must be tabled in each House of Parliament on any of the first 15 days on which that House is sitting after the interim order is made.

Earlier, the minister told us, “Yes, it gave authority for an interim order to be tabled in both Houses, here and in the other place, and there could be motions and a debate”. Note that he said that there could be a debate, if they wanted one and if it were necessary.

People have obviously understood that when there is a debate here, it is the Liberal majority that decides. We can move a motion but, if the Liberal majority decides that we are not going to deal with it, there will not be any debate.

We are told that the interim order will be tabled on any of the first 15 days on which the House is sitting and that it will now be valid for 45 days instead of 90. But an interim order is urgent and is made within hours or days of an event. Inevitably, the harm, if any, will be done. And this will not change with Bill C-55, any more than it did with Bill C-42. Nothing has changed.

The government can say that the issue is evolving, but when an interim order with the force of a regulation does not need to be tested against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms--the charter filter--the rights of parliamentarians have been violated, and citizens no longer have any way of finding out whether the decisions of one man, a minister, respect their rights and freedoms.

The second part of Bill C-55, as set out by the minister, deals with the famous military security zones, which have become controlled access military zones. The Bloc Quebecois waged a very vocal campaign against this military interference in the civilian activities of militants, of groups of protestors who often take part in demonstrations. The government has obviously eliminated large parts of this bill.

But as for the meaning, the scope and everything DND officials and all those who thought they were going to get new military authority wanted, the basic outline is still there.

It is simple. Members have talked about two pages. In two pages, the government imposes a military state, allows a single person, the minister, to send the army into an area. The new wording is as follows:

260.1(1) Subject to subsection (2), the Minister personally, on the recommendation of the Chief of the Defence Staff, may designate a controlled access military zone in Canada in relation to:

The minister is the only one who can make this decision. The wording is simple. The only man who can make this decision is the defence minister. The very man who did not see fit to inform the Privy Council, cabinet, the Prime Minister and the government that Canadian Forces had taken prisoners in Afghanistan. This is the man. And he is the one who will have the authority to designate controlled access military zones. Of course, only regarding the following:

(a) a defence establishment;

(b) property that is provided for the Canadian Forces or the Department and is situated outside a defence establishment;

(c) a vessel, aircraft or other property under the control of a visiting force that is legally in Canada by virtue of the Visiting Forces Act.

They seem to be telling us that they want to protect our defence establishments. This makes sense. They must be protected. However, they are already military zones. A military base or any property belonging to the Department of National Defence is already a military zone entirely under its control.

So why add this? Because of the following paragraph which says:

(b) property that is provided for the Canadian Forces or the Department and is situated outside of a defence establishment.

The objective is to say that the minister will be able to designate a zone including a military establishment or military equipment, but not on property belonging to the department, therefore on civilian territory. Of course, there are many appropriate examples of this, which we will point out during the vigorous debate that will be triggered by Bill C-55.

For instance, there is the Citadel in Quebec City and everything around the Armoury, which belongs to the Canadian Forces. As you know, across from the Citadel there is the National Assembly and the Quebec government. This, of course, could be part of what is outside a defence establishment.

Therefore, this means that under this bill, in order to protect his establishment, the minister, the man who did not want and did not bother to inform the Prime Minister, cabinet, the Privy Council and the government that the army had taken prisoners in Afghanistan, will be able to designate, around the Citadel in Quebec City, a controlled access military zone that could include the National Assembly.

This is the reality. Examples abound as the minister is asking the same for “a vessel, aircraft or other property under the control of a visiting force that is legally in Canada”.

We often talk about G-8 meetings and these sorts of things. Some heads of states and governments arrive with their own military equipment. When there is a meeting of the most influential people on the planet, that is members of the G-8, the defence minister could automatically designate a zone around the site of the meeting where there is military equipment—of course, I hope heads of states will land with their helicopters and their planes close to where these meetings take place—to protect such equipment.

This is quite astounding. And it is not only the equipment. The next paragraph says:

The Minister may designate a controlled access military zone only if it is reasonably necessary for ensuring the safety or security of

(a) any person—

Obviously, it is not only to protect property, but also to protect people. Who are these people? They are all the people who could feel threatened at any location where there is military equipment.

Subparagraph ( b ) refers to property that is provided for the Canadian Forces.

So it is not only property that belongs to the Canadian Forces, but also property that is provided for them. It could be any federal building that the government decides to lend to the Canadian Forces to set up headquarters or for some other reason.

Obviously, the government could do indirectly what Bill C-42 enabled it to do directly. These provisions can be interpreted that way.

Yesterday, the ministers, particularly the defence minister, told us that we should not presume that they are acting in bad faith. Bad faith is never presumed, it is observed. Every day, we see the government's bad faith in this House. How could we trust the defence minister who, as far as I am concerned, has lost all credibility over the last few months?

So one man, the Minister of National Defence, is entrusted with the task of designating controlled access military zones, including in Quebec. Of course, we are being told that this will be done only if it is reasonably necessary. This expression is used four times. The zone cannot be of any size. The controlled access military zone may not be larger than is reasonably necessary.

We hear about the zone, the area—

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the transport minister on at least waking up the justice minister to his wonderful display of arm waving which was good.

First, I want to comment on his final comments with regard to airport traffic. I will move specifically to Bill C-55 in a moment. The minister said that airport traffic is back after September 11 and somehow that is a great feat by the government.

First, airport traffic is back because people already bought their tickets prior to April 1, so they did not have to pay the $24 tax. Second, people are booking their flights today for the summer to avoid paying the $24 tax and it is the travel season. Third, the vast majority of air carriers are having broad seat sales right now because they are scared of going under because the government is taxing them into the ground.

I rise on Bill C-55 which is an act to amend certain acts of Canada and to enact measures for implementing the biological and toxin weapons convention to enhance public safety. It is also known as the public security act.

Bill C-55 gives cabinet members acting alone outrageous and broad new powers with limited checks and balances. If these powers were exercised to their fullest possible extent, they could represent a grave threat to the notion of parliamentary democracy that Canadians hold so dearly.

We were glad that the Liberals withdrew their Bill C-42, but they seem to have missed the entire reason why so many members of the House and so many members of the public were exercised with concern about the problems of Bill C-42.

Specifically, the concerns that Canadians had with Bill C-42, which are still present in Bill C-55, are the capacity of cabinet ministers to invoke a number of interim order measures and the capacity for the minister of defence acting alone to create military security zones. Both of those aspects of Bill C-42 are alive and well in Bill C-55. It is because of those aspects that a number of Canadians will continue to have concerns about the bill and that the official opposition will oppose the bill and encourage all others to do so as well.

As I said, the government can still create a military security zone to protect, as the bill says, “property that is provided for the armed forces for the department and is situated outside a defence establishment”.

In the old bill the government could have declared an area like Kananaskis where the G-8 summit will be a military security zone. It still can in Bill C-55. All it has to do is put some military equipment like a jeep or a helicopter in the zone and they can therefore declare it a security zone under section 260.1(3) which reads:

A controlled access military zone may consist of an area of land or water, a portion of airspace, or a structure or part of one, surrounding a thing referred to in subsection (1) [basically equipment and personnel]...The zone automatically includes all corresponding airspace above, and water and land below, the earth's surface.

This power should not be in the sole, arbitrary hands of the minister of defence.

A recent poll has shown that 69% of Canadians see our federal political system as being corrupt. Canadians are unlikely to be thrilled by this legislation such as this, where the government grabs more unchecked power for ministers. At present the public's faith in democracy is tainted more than ever by the Liberal government's track record on things such as imposing a $24 air tax, despite the fact that air security at most airports has not been improved as the minister says and that the transport committee recommended against such an extreme airline killing measure.

Also, the government invoked closure to impose the legislation, Bill C-49, and which imposed the tax. These things do not build confidence with Canadians. The government also has a lack of respect for free votes in this place and the treatment of private members' bill. It has a lack of commitment to a democratically elected Senate. It has muzzled politically free speech for their own backbenchers. It has a lack of free votes allowed by Liberals in this place. There are also countless other examples and they do not build the confidence of Canadians.

The government should be building the confidence of Canadians in democracy and governance. Bill C-55 will only work to continue the downward spiral of public faith in the institution of governance.

Bill C-55 is a vast and comprehensive bill affecting some nine federal departments. It amends 20 federal statutes and implements in domestic law an international convention that Canada ratified back on March 26, 1975. That treaty is the biological and toxin weapons convention and it shows a stunning lack of vision that it has taken us a quarter of a century to finally make it part of our laws.

In times of trial lucky nations remember great leaders. The British remember Winston Churchill. His unbroken spirit strengthened British resolve during the darkest days of the second world war. Americans remember Franklin Delano Roosevelt as the president who led their nation to great victories across two different oceans at a time when freedom itself was at stake.

All those who are alive today know that President Bush, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani and Prime Minister Blair will fare similarly well with historians. As we struggle to deal with the aftermath of September 11, now roughly eight months ago, these three leaders have set the standard by which the world will judge political courage in a time of crisis in the years to come.

Those standards are tough. They mandate a committed ongoing and continuous fight against terrorism and the defence of our way of life, the rule of law, pluralism and democracy. Tougher still, they will require respect for diversity and understanding through dialogue so that in our zeal to protect the democratic Liberal values, which the western world so shares, we do not inadvertently diminish or deny that which we are striving to protect.

Finally and perhaps most important, those standards require firm, principled leadership. That leadership requires two very simple things: a clearly identified goal and a precise way of reaching it.

In the immediate aftermath of September 11 President Bush led. He set a goal of making America safe against further terrorist attacks and of restoring the confidence of Americans. He launched six different initiatives.

The first was the office of homeland security to deal with threats against American territory and appointed Vietnam veteran, former army ranger and former Pennsylvania governor, Tom Ridge as its director.

Second, he created a military campaign to fight terrorism abroad and involve America's allies in that campaign.

Third, he launched an aggressive worldwide campaign to identify and prosecute those who were responsible for the September 11 attacks.

Fourth, blocking of terrorist financing was a priority and access to international banking networks was fought.

Fifth, he launched a concerted diplomatic effort with America's allies to secure the co-operation of the United Nations Security Council, NATO and the Organization of American States in collectively fighting terrorism.

Sixth, he established a fund to help Afghan children, recognizing that they too were victims of the events of September 11.

Each of President Bush's initiatives were and are distinct and well designed, rather like the blades of a Swiss army knife. Each has a specific purpose but the six together are a powerful and comprehensive combination. Quite simply, they have been designed like a Swiss army knife, to work well together so as to be greater than the sum of their parts and like a Swiss army knife they are designed to get the job done.

If we think of President Bush's initiatives as a Swiss army knife, this government's attempts to deal with the aftermath of September 11 are rather like the tools we might find at the bottom of a box at a rummage sale. Some are good, some are missing pieces, some are quite beyond redemption and even the ones that work are not necessarily designed to work together.

Of all the governments on this continent, the Canadian federal government has by far the most legislative and administrative power. An arrogant Prime Minister can appoint his cabinet ministers and he can make them do his bidding or face political exile in the obscurity of the government backbenches. His decisions are supported by 170 plus Liberal voting machines. Their unquestioning support of every piece of government legislation gives the Prime Minister a degree of concentration of power unseen in other liberal democracies.

Given the vast powers of the Canadian Prime Minister, virtually any bold incisive solution was possible in response to September 11. Whatever measure, whichever regulation desired would have easily become a legal reality. Given such latitude, it is sad, perhaps even a bit frightening, that with respect to the public safety act this is the third time in three attempts that the Liberal government has dropped the ball.

When after September 11 Canadians clamored for a collective sense of security, the government increased taxes on air travellers. Today in reaction to polls showing that Canadians do not trust government, the federal Liberals offer up not accountability but a power grab for the cabinet.

Bill C-55 is another omnibus bill that the government has tabled since September 11 and the tragedy therein. The first was Bill C-36 which the government introduced on October 15, over a month after the tragedy and which amended over a dozen statutes and added a new one.

Bill C-55, the public safety act, is just as cumbersome and every bit as complex as Bill C-36. Indeed this bill's complexity and the ham-fisted way incompatible themes have been duct taped together into one bill is obviously a sign of a government unable to and arguably incapable of leading in a time of crisis.

On November 20, 2001 at about 5.25 in the evening the government House leader sought unanimous consent to suspend the standing orders and introduce a government bill at 2 p.m. the next afternoon. The bill, “An Act to amend certain Acts of Canada and to enact measures for implementing the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, in order to enhance public safety”, would be complex and a briefing to staff would be offered. After two months of hibernation on aviation security legislation, there was now a flicker of hope that our government would finally react.

At 2 p.m. on November 21, 2001 the promised bill was nowhere in sight. Last minute problems delayed its introduction. Bill C-42 was introduced the following day on November 22 and contained some 19 parts dealing with everything from money laundering to the implementation of a 1977 treaty on biotoxins. A miniature section on aviation security was thrown in for measured optics.

With the same deft touch that marked the bill's introduction on Wednesday, November 28, within a week of its first reading in the House, the government House leader was again on his feet to state that unanimous consent had been required and obtained to delete clause 5 which dealt with section 4.83 of the Aeronautics Act regarding the provision of information. The clause was to be reintroduced in Bill C-44, an act to amend the Aeronautics Act, which was ordered for consideration at second reading a mere two sitting days later.

Examination showed that the clause which was deleted had been written to comply with section 115 of the U.S. aviation and transportation security act which had been signed by President Bush days prior. In short, airlines would not be able to fly into the United States after January 18 unless they provided certain information to the U.S. customs service.

There was one problem. The clause allowing Canadian airlines to comply with the U.S. legislation was buried deep in a massive omnibus bill and there was no hope of getting the omnibus bill passed before January 18, 2002. The government took the only possible option. It took the useful clause out of Bill C-42 and introduced it as Bill C-44, a one clause bill which was passed in the House on December 6 and received royal assent on December 18.

The Liberals' stunning mishandling of the public safety act is underlined by the fact that more than five months after Bill C-42 was introduced we are discussing and debating a virtually identical bill with most of the same problems. The government seems to have learned nothing.

Bill C-55 addresses a number of totally unrelated ideas. It should be broken up. Just as it made sense last November to put clauses of Bill C-42 into a separate bill, Bill C-44, it now makes sense to break Bill C-55 into separate bills so they might in turn get the committee's scrutiny. This is what our system of government was designed for. It is what Canadians expect. It would allow the various committees of the House to study the relevant parts of the bill instead of sending the entire bill to a single committee, in this case the Standing Committee on Transport and Government Operations.

Bill C-55 deals with money laundering and the implementation of a 1977 treaty on biotoxins, topics which would hardly be considered the domain and responsibility of a transport committee. Having said that, I will deal in specific terms with the sections of the bill that deal truly with transport. It is our intention to give each of our party's critics the opportunity to speak to the parts of Bill C-55 that would affect the departments they monitor. It is also our intention to allow our justice critic the hon. member for Provencher to address the parts of the bill that would give ministers the power to make interim orders with respect to unforeseen threats in their departments.

I will address the key areas with respect to transport. The first is the apportionment of security costs. As members opposite may notice, this is not dealt with in Bill C-55. That is part of the problem. Bill C-42 which Bill C-55 replaces was also called the public safety act. It contained a clause which would have introduced a new subsection to the Aeronautics Act. Proposed subsection 4.75(1) read:

The Minister may apportion the costs of any security measure between the persons to whom it is directed, or by whom it is carried out, and any person or persons who, in the opinion of the Minister, would reasonably be expected to benefit from the security measure.

In the context of passenger screening this might have apportioned costs among the flying public to whom it was directed, the airlines and airport authorities who carried it out, and any person who could have reasonably benefited from it. Given that the September 11 victims were mostly in office towers and on the ground, this might well have been the general taxpayer.

These sentiments were expressed in recommendation 14 of the report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Government Operations, “Building a Transportation Security Culture: Aviation as the Starting Point”, which was released on Friday, December 7. I am glad the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport is here because the report which tabled 15 recommendations on airport and airline security was supported unanimously at committee.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, the hon. member of parliament from Chicoutimi, said the government should not impose a $24 tax and put it all on the shoulders of passengers. He said we should spread out the costs. The view was supported unanimously but the government rejected it. It rejected its own parliamentary secretary and the hard work of the committee.

The recommendation I am referring to reads:

All stakeholders--including airports, air carriers, airline passengers and/or residents of Canada--contribute to the cost of improved aviation security. In particular, the amounts currently spent by airports and air carriers should be continued--

They are not now continued by law. The recommendation goes on:

--with appropriate adjustments for inflation. A ticket surtax could also be implemented, and any funding shortfalls could be financed out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The initial apportionment of security costs was a good idea. It was in the spirit of what the transport committee had recommended. I was surprised the clause was not included in the new public safety act Bill C-55. After all, we read constantly in the press that the Liberals want to listen to Canadians and their concerns.

When I heard WestJet was cutting 13 weekly flights between Edmonton and Calgary and dropping its Victoria-Kelowna service as a result of the oppressive impact of the Liberal government's air tax on short haul carriers, I hoped the Liberals were listening. I thought maybe they were having a change of heart. Then I noticed the apportionment of costs clause was gone from Bill C-55. If Bill C-42 had not been withdrawn and had been reintroduced in virtually its original form with only a number change, the apportionment of security costs would have ended up being debated and scrutinized by the transport committee which had recommended an apportionment of security costs model in the first place.

Given that the model was rejected by the finance committee after the Liberals who supported it were removed and by the Liberal voting machine which heeded the Prime Minister's orders on Bill C-49, the government did not want the apportionment of security costs clause going back before the committee. Since it was the only way to avoid having such a clause debated by committee the government pulled the bill, deleted the clause, renumbered the bill and reintroduced it as a brand new piece of legislation in Bill C-55. After all this government members wonder why 69% of Canadians think federal politics is corrupt.

The second transport related clause of Bill C-55 that I will address is the new anti-air rage provision. Clause 17 of Bill C-55 would introduce a new section to the Aeronautics Act, section 7.41. In many ways the section would build on concepts contained in the 1963 Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft which Canada ratified on November 7, 1969, and the 1971 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation which Canada ratified on June 19, 1972.

Essentially these treaties make interference with cockpit crew an international offence. Clause 17 of Bill C-55 would make it an offence punishable by a $100,000 fine and/or up to five years in jail to interfere with any crew member in the performance of his or her duties or anyone who is following the instruction of a crew member. We in our party fully support clause 17 of Bill C-55 and applaud its introduction by the government.

Clause 5 of Bill C-55 deals with the type of information an airline or other transport authority may provide to authorities. It would modify sections 4.7 and 4.8 of the Aeronautics Act. Under clause 5 of Bill C-55 the new subsection 4.82(4) of the Aeronautics Act would read:

The Commissioner, or a person designated under subsection (2), may, for the purposes of transportation security or the identification of persons for whom a warrant has been issued, require any air carrier or operator of an aviation reservation system to provide a person designated under subsection (2), within the time and in the manner specified by the person imposing the requirement, with the information set out in the schedule

(a) that is in the air carrier's or operator's control concerning the persons on board or expected to be on board an aircraft for any flight specified by the person imposing the requirement; or

(b) that is in the air carrier's or operator's control, or that comes into their control within 30 days after the requirement is imposed on them, concerning any particular person specified by the person imposing the requirement.

The modified subsection 4.82(5) of the Aeronautics Act would enable the RCMP to share this information with CSIS. These powers, correctly used and perhaps modified by committee, might give Canadian intelligence authorities access to the same type of information the Americans have in their Computer-Assisted Passenger Prescreening System or CAPPS. It is imperative that this be the case.

For years Canadians have bragged about having the world's longest undefended border. We have had access to America like no other nation. Those days are over because of the government's mismanagement since September 11. Armed national guardsmen now protect the previously undefended border. That single fact, breaking with years of tradition, is a damning indictment of the government's post-September 11 record. By guarding the border the Americans are sending Canada a simple, four word message: “We don't trust you”.

Sunday's 60 Minutes report may help convince some of the voting machines opposite of the urgent need to act. We face a choice as a nation. With regard to the new fortress America we can either be inside looking out or outside looking in. We are on probation. It matters greatly what we do in the coming months.

It is critical that we build computer system like the one America has, the Computer-Assisted Passenger Prescreening System or CAPPS. This would show we were serious about protecting our border from terrorism and those who would use our tremendous support of legitimate refugees as a cover for criminal acts. A cornerstone of CAPPS is getting information from airlines. Bill C-55's modifications to subsections 4.82(4) and 4.82(5) of the Aeronautics Act are a step in the right direction.

It may come as a surprise to members of the House that airlines maintain two types of files on their passengers. First, they maintain a passenger name record or PNR. This is the file airlines create when they reserve a seat for a passenger. It contains information such as the passenger's name, address, phone number and form of payment. It also contains reservation information such as boarding city, destination, connections, flight numbers, dates, stops and seat assignment. Based on this information the manifest is prepared for each flight showing who is sitting where. Routinely at present this is the information handed over to authorities when there is an airline accident.

Second, airlines maintain the APIS or advanced passenger information system data. It includes five fields: passenger name; date of birth; citizenship, nationality and document issuing country; gender; and passport or document number. Other than the passenger's name this information is not normally collected by the airlines. Unless passports are machine readable much of the information must be entered manually. For this reason airlines only collect it when they must provide it to immigration authorities.

The U.S. currently requires this type of information for U.S. bound Asian passengers transiting through Vancouver under the Canada-U.S. memorandum of understanding which allows such passengers to go through U.S. customs without first passing through Canadian customs. It is not immediately clear whether the modified subsections 4.82(4) and 4.82(5) of the Aeronautics Act would apply only to PNR information which airlines normally have in their reservations systems or also to APIS information which may be collected as passengers board flights overseas destined for Canada.

In the U.S. the new aviation and transportation security act mandates that the administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration require air carriers to expand the application of the Computer-Assisted Passenger Prescreening System or CAPPS to all passengers regardless of baggage. In addition, passengers selected under the system are subject to additional security measures before boarding including checks of carry on baggage and of their person. Both the PNR and APIS information is sent electronically to the U.S. customs supercomputer in Newington, Virginia where the CAPPS system enables the passenger profiling that keeps America's skies safe.

The U.S. is actively fighting a war on terrorism. It is walking the walk, unlike the Liberal government. Given that page 95 of the budget allocates $76 million to improving co-ordination and information sharing among government agencies, I call on the government to follow America's lead and send both PNR and APIS information to a single agency so Canada can create its own CAPPS system to enhance intelligence gathering on would-be terrorists. This would keep Canadians safe in the air and on the ground. More importantly, it would help restore America's trust in Canada's commitment to fighting terrorism as opposed to merely talking about fighting terrorism which is all we have seen from the government. It would be nice if the government would make the real legislative and budgetary commitments to send that signal. With a view to enabling this type of information gathering the Canadian Alliance will be tabling amendments at committee.

I conclude by calling on the government to divide Bill C-55 so the appropriate standing committees may give the bill proper examination. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after “that” and substituting the following:

“this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-55, An Act to amend certain Acts of Canada, and to enact measures for implementing the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, in order to enhance public safety, since the Bill reflects several principles unrelated to transport and government operations rendering it impractical for the Standing Committee on Transport and Government Operations to properly consider it”.

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

moved that Bill C-55, an act to amend certain acts of Canada, and to enact measures for implementing the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, in order to enhance public safety, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-55, the Public Safety Act, 2002. This new bill proposes to amend 20 acts of parliament and to enact one new one as part of the government's anti-terrorism plan.

Following the tragic and horrible events of September 11, we acted immediately to put in place the necessary strategic, operational, financial and legislative tools to strengthen our ability to protect Canada and Canadians against terrorism.

To that end, the 2001 budget included a $7.7 billion investment in safety over a period of five years. During this initial process, we drafted Bill C-42, which was our original framework to ensure public safety.

Since that time we have reflected upon how we can best contribute to making our country as safe and secure as possible. We have listened to the provinces, the territories, the public and of course most important, the members of the House, especially my colleagues in the Liberal caucus.

We have responded to their views. This is the essence of parliamentary democracy. Initiatives are brought forward, they are debated and arguments are made. The government has listened, has withdrawn the original bill and has brought forward a new bill which is improved and would deal with the criticisms that were levelled. While the new bill contains many of the important elements of Bill C-42, it also incorporates many significant improvements.

Several technical and consequential changes were made to the new bill, and several clauses were renumbered. I can discuss this in committee.

I would like to look more closely at three of the main changes that we made to the bill, namely the provisions dealing with interim orders, with access zones and with providing the solicitor general with access to airline passenger information for transportation security, antiterrorism and other law enforcement purposes.

First, we have revised the provisions concerning the government's ability to issue interim orders when they are essential to combat an immediate and serious threat or risk to health, safety, security or to the environment.

As we know these orders are issued in extraordinary circumstances when there is no regulation or inadequate regulation to address the threat under acts within the mandate of the Ministers of Health, Environment, Fisheries and Oceans, and Transport.

Members will recall that the provisions would ensure that the interim order must be valid for a period of up to one year and must be published in the Canada Gazette within 23 days from the time it is issued. It could be repealed at any time and would be subject to judicial review.

We felt that all of those safeguards were in place in the original Bill C-42, especially the fact that any of these orders could be challenged in the courts. There were a number of questions raised in the House and we have added additional safeguards to the new bill.

For example, we have reduced the period within which a minister would be required to obtain approval from the governor in council from 90 days to 45 days after the order is made. We have also required that a copy of these interim orders of general application, including those made under the Aeronautics Act, be tabled in parliament within the first 15 sitting days after the order is issued.

This is a particularly important feature of the act. Unlike in Bill C-42, the orders would be tabled with the Clerk of the House. That means, when a document is given to the House, hon. members may move the appropriate motion if they wish it to be debated. I would submit that this does give parliamentarians a formal role to express their views on these interim orders.

It is not a question of parliamentary consent being given. That consent of course is given when the law is passed in its original form. That means it is legal for the government to issue such orders. If there is a challenge to a particular order, if it is controversial, if public pressure is needed to ask the government to modify that order, then we believe, by tabling that order in the House, it means there is an opportunity to have it debated if indeed that is required.

We believe this strikes the right balance between ensuring that the government can meet its responsibility to act immediately in a crisis situation while ensuring that an appropriate degree of control is exercised.

Second, we are following up on issues raised in connection with a number of amendments in Bill C-42 concerning the National Defence Act.

“Military security zones” have been replaced by “controlled access military zones”. The new provisions significantly reduces the size of these zones by limiting their use to the protection of defence establishments as well as Canadian Forces and visiting forces personnel and property located outside the defence establishments.

We have also included time restrictions and more stringent requirements for zone establishment and approval. For instance, a zone would be designated for up to one year, unless renewed by the governor in council. Also, we have taken all appropriate measures to ensure that a zone designation or variance notice is published in the Canada Gazette within 23 days.

Third, we responded to assertions by some hon. members that the former bill did not go far enough to prevent access by terrorists to Canadian planes. We have added an amendment to the Aeronautics Act that would provide the solicitor general with access to airline passenger information for transportation security, anti-terrorism and other limited law enforcement purposes.

Under this amendment select designated RCMP officers would be able to match the passenger information with other information under their control. For example, the RCMP officers in the air carrier protective program would be able to use this information to determine which passengers may pose a risk to public safety or to transportation security so they may decide on which flights RCMP officers should be present.

Other designated RCMP officers could use the information to check whether a passenger is subject to an arrest warrant for a serious offence such as murder or kidnapping, or subject to a warrant issued under the Immigration Act.

Also, CSIS officers would have access to this information for the purpose of investigating potential terrorists or terrorism threats, pursuant to their mandate under the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act.

In addition to these strict access and use provisions we have added other provisions limiting disclosure. For example, these officers would only be able to disclose this information to a third party for purposes restricted to transportation security, outstanding arrest warrants, compliance with a subpoena or court order, or for immediate threats to life, health, safety or transportation security.

We believe it is essential to protect the privacy of personal information. For this reason we have built in numerous privacy safeguards. For example, under this proposed regime: passenger information must be destroyed within seven days unless it is reasonably required for transportation security or for investigating security threats to Canada; written requirements of all retention and disclosures must be kept; the RCMP commissioner and the director of CSIS must conduct annual reviews of information retained by designated officers and further retention must be justified; and only a CSIS designated officer would be able to disclose to another CSIS employee for a counterterrorism investigation under the CSIS Act, and only after approval by a senior designated CSIS officer.

We believe that we have effectively balanced the legitimate information needs of law enforcement and intelligence officers with respect to the privacy of Canadians. We believe that we have protected both our democratic rights and our rights to live safely and securely. Once we begin to evaluate people the debate between the privacy of individuals and the security of the flight begins.

Bill C-55 places this debate squarely where it should be, within parliament with its proposals on how, and for what purpose, airline passenger data can be accessed. I know there will be a vigorous debate on this and other matters in the bill. I understand that today the privacy commissioner issued a letter of concern on some of the provisions in the bill. I met with him last week to talk about the general direction of the bill and told him the aims of the government in bringing the bill forward. After the bill was tabled he had an opportunity to look at its wording, and he has some concerns. I am sure he will address those concerns and be called before the relevant committee to make his point.

I would ask members to keep in mind that prior to September 11 it was generally accepted that screening should ensure that no undesirable item be carried onto an aircraft such as a gun, hunting knife or hand grenade. It was obviously made clear on September 11 that a group of five people could take over an aircraft with ordinary objects. We believe this requires that screening no longer simply look for the object, but that people themselves be considered. That is why we need some of the changes in this particular bill.

I want to look at the major changes in the new bill which directly come under my responsibility as Minister of Transport.

We have retained our amendment to the Aeronautics Act to be able to access airline passenger data for transportation security purposes only. Under this limited regime we would collect airline passenger data on a specific person or on all persons on a specific flight in the event of an immediate security threat so that we may issue appropriate security measures or emergency directions. Once again, we have built in strict privacy safeguards to the regime.

In the interest of enhancing transparency we have added to the bill the details that we said previously would be set out later in regulations. As a result we have specified: the exact data elements that are to be provided to the minister in the schedule attached to the bill; the persons to whom the minister may disclose the information, namely the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority and to persons designated by the RCMP or CSIS; and strict use and destruction requirements, namely that the information could be used only for transportation security purposes and could only be disclosed within the organizations I just mentioned, and that it must be disposed of within seven days of the date it was first received by those organizations. The only exception is when that information is disclosed by Transport Canada to the officers designated by the RCMP and CSIS, those agencies would follow the provisions of their regime.

Given that the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority or CATSA was not in existence when Bill C-42 was drafted, we have proposed some amendments to the CATSA act in the new bill.

We have clarified the definition of a screening point to indicate that an authorized aerodrome operator may act on behalf of CATSA in the delivery of screening services.

In addition we have added amendments that would allow CATSA to enter into agreements with any airport operator to contribute to the costs of policing at the airports. There were some airports that were not covered originally. One in particular in the home province of the critic for the Alliance, Kelowna, which is owned by the city, would not have had the benefit of receiving such contributions. This would deal with that particular anomaly.

Finally, following concerns expressed by Canadian port authorities, we are proposing amendments to the Marine Transportation Security Act so that the Government of Canada can make financial contributions in respect of actions that enhance security on vessels or at marine facilities.

These contributions would need the approval of the Governor in Council given on the recommendation of the Treasury Board. This financing comes with a sunset provision that will come into effect after three years, since all security initiatives requiring capital investments should be over by then.

In tabling this new bill the government has signalled its openness to improve the legislative framework that would enhance our ability to respond quickly and effectively should a significant threat arise and to provide Canadians with a safe and secure environment. It will continue to be flexible as we move forward in the legislative process, and we will continue to work in the interests of all Canadians as we strive to protect Canada from the tragedy of war or terrorism.

I believe that the Government of Canada acted with dispatch after the terrible events of September 11. We introduced new regulations. We provided moneys for additional security. Canadians have been assured by what the government has done.

Just in the aviation field alone, the president of the Canadian Air Force Council was here yesterday to meet with some of us. He told me that airport traffic as of the end of last month was down only 9% over a year earlier. Given what happened on September 11 and given of course the slower economy last year, this tells me that Canadians are coming back into the skies, they are flying, because they have confidence. Yes, the economy is improving, but they really have confidence in the security that we have put in place.

In the United States the situation is not the same. Our friends in the U.S. are still not really assured that it is safe to fly. I believe the U.S. government has done an admiral job. We have worked with the FAA. We have worked with our counterparts in the department of transportation in Washington. For any Americans who are watching the proceedings today, they should know that their government has done an admirable job in bringing in tighter controls and newer regulations.

Of course on September 11 the attacks were made in the United States. Americans feel that they are perhaps more vulnerable and they are the targets. Perhaps Canadians do not feel that way. However we believe that air travel is safe and that people are indeed flying once again.

I know the hon. members would like me to not be as thoughtful. They would want some histrionics. I am sure my friend from Port Moody--Coquitlam--Coquitlam will be there, arms waving and making the normal outrageous insinuations that he has made over time. I will not fall into that trap today because this is serious business. I can see the gravitas on the faces of my colleagues because they take this seriously.

We have done a good job. We continue to do a good job. I would hope that the members of the House will support this initiative. It is worthy of their support. We have listened to parliamentarians. We have listened to Canadians. This bill is worthy of the support of all members of the House and I hope that they will support it.

Public Safety Act

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we were very pleased to learn that Bill C-42, the Public Safety Act, which the government introduced last fall following the events of September 11, had been withdrawn.

While fighting terrorism is more essential than ever to protect our fundamental values, the Bloc Quebecois has always stressed the importance of maintaining a fair balance between security and the protection of rights and freedoms, which are the very foundations of our democracy.

Bill C-42 did not preserve this balance at all and it would have given a dangerous discretionary power to the Minister of National Defence by allowing, among other measures, the suspension of the rights of citizens through the creation of military security zones, something which could have led to abuse.

If the government comes back with an amended version of this legislation, the Bloc Quebecois will oppose any measure that would give extravagant powers to the minister or could be an irritant for democracy.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, There have been some discussions among all the party House leaders, and I believe you would find unanimous consent to discharge the order for consideration of Bill C-42 and to withdraw this bill from the order paper.

Canada Business Corporations Act

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-448, an act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this private member's bill which seeks to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act to require the auditor to divulge to shareholders whether he or she is providing other, non-audit services to the same company.

This is an issue of increasing interest after the Enron scandal which was one of the factors in the collapse of Enron. We do not believe the auditor should provide non-audit services to the same company he or she is auditing. Bill C-448 would oblige the auditor to divulge in his or her annual report whether that was the practice.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

(Bill C-42. On the Order: Government Orders:)

Second reading and reference to Standing Committee on Transport and Government Operations of Bill C-42, an act to amend certain acts of Canada, and to enact measures for implementing the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, in order to enhance public safety

Pest Control Products Act

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, at the outset let me indicate that I will be splitting my time with the member for Windsor--St. Clair.

We have had a rare sighting in the House today. We actually have a piece of health legislation before the Chamber. This is good news. It is good news that we finally can focus our attention on the number one issue facing Canadians and deal with substantive legislation in this very important area. You will understand my delight and appreciation, Mr. Speaker, for this moment in our Chamber today, considering the fact that for the five years I have been health critic for the New Democratic Party we have dealt with three pieces of legislation on the whole broad area of health care.

Shortly after the 1997 election we dealt with Bill C-42, a bill that actually weakened the Tobacco Control Act. Then we dealt with Bill S-17, a bill in response to the drug industry that extended patent protection for pharmaceuticals. We did deal with a positive initiative, Bill C-13, which established the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. On the other hand the water bill that came in for second reading disappeared. We had a brief sighting of a food safety bill. It was tabled, we were tantalized with it and it disappeared.

Finally we have a piece of legislation on health care and health protection. Thank heavens for that. I commend the new Minister of Health for doing something so early in her new term, taking over from a minister who is known for and will go down in history as the minister of unfinished business. I am glad to see we have some initiative on the part of the Liberal government today on a very important area of health care. I hope that it is an indication of some political courage, fortitude, strength and vision on the part of the government when it comes to health care.

We are dealing today with one of the two important pillars of health care in Canada today, that being health protection. The other important pillar is health insurance or our beloved medicare system. Both those pillars are crumbling under the neglect of this government. For at least as long as I have been here, we have seen nothing but neglect, delay and study. As a result, the institutions that have united the country and served Canadians well have been crumbling out of neglect and desperately are in need of vision and leadership from the government.

You will also understand, Mr. Speaker, my skepticism today when I indicate that we have been trying for many years now to gain recognition for the importance of protecting Canadians from the ill effects of toxins in food, water, air and in pesticides. We have tried tirelessly to get the government to act on a number of important issues of great significance to health and well-being of Canadians, particularly the health and well-being of children.

I want to remind all members of our efforts to raise the matter of arsenic in pressure treated wood. Did we get any concrete action in response to that? No. We raised the issue of mercury in fish, which is very dangerous to pregnant women and the children they are carrying. Did we get any action on that? No. Maybe we got some warnings hidden on an Internet site but there was no specific action. We raised the question of toxic substances in plastics that were a part of toys on which babies chewed. Did we get any action from the government on that important issue? No.

Time and time again the government has chosen to delay and wait until the damage is done; when it is too late. It is important today that we finally act on a very important issue pertaining to pesticides, clearly an area that has potentially devastating ramifications for human health, particularly the health and well-being of the children.

I am skeptical even as I speak about this bill just because of the record of the government on pesticides alone. Look at the issue of Dursban, a pesticide that was banned in the United States and which this government finally decided to ban it in June 2000.

Here we are and what is the news today? Dursban is still available on the market. It is like Lindane. We heard from the member for Selkirk--Interlake, on the other side of this issue of course, on the issue of Lindane. It was recognized as causing serious health problems and was banned.

However, both Dursban and Lindane are on the market. Why? Because of the pressure from the industry to allow it to get rid of the product already out there. Maybe there is a ban on creating new product or having new product on the market, but it is okay to allow poisonous substances to stay on the market, no matter the consequences, no matter the ramifications? Does that make any sense? What is the point of a ban? Why spout about action when there is no real intention to act on the rhetoric?

We always try to teach our kids and their parents something that I think the government would do well to heed and that is the expression, “Say what you mean and mean what you say”, and do what you say you're going to do. When it comes to health protection and toxins in our environment or the potentially hazardous substances in the food we eat and in the toys we play with, where is the government? It is sitting back and letting the marketplace be overtaken by products that could be dangerous as opposed to offering a proactive, regulatory approach in this whole area.

The bill is a move in that direction. I do not want to sit down without giving some credit to the government for taking some steps in the right direction. It certainly does that. It is long overdue. One has to ask why a bill that is 33 years old is only now being revised and revamped. One has to ask why, 10 years after the Liberals promised to bring in new legislation in the 1993 election, we are here today just beginning the process. One has to ask why the delay, when the former minister of health said last year that he would have legislation in the House by fall 2001. One has to ask why it has taken so long after the environment committee did such a comprehensive report on this issue in May 2000.

The good news is that we are finally here. We finally have a piece of legislation. We finally have something to put our teeth into and we finally have some hope to offer Canadians, especially children. The concern about the delay was best said by children's entertainer and health advocate, Raffi, who was here on the Hill not too long ago and reminded us of our obligations. As his song says, if children had a say, this would have been done by now. I think this is the real issue today: What are we doing today in this legislation to ensure that the health of children and all Canadians is protected?

The minister very rightly identified the fact that pesticides can have a disproportionate impact on children. Children face a special vulnerability because of pesticides. We have to recognize that and make sure that this legislation uses that as a measure, as a bottom line in terms of determining safety and taking cautionary steps. There are good parts in the bill. We certainly want to recognize the fact that in the bill there are more modern risk assessment practices, a mandatory re-evaluation of pesticides, a provision for increased public participation, a better method of reporting adverse effects and so on. I want to give credit to the minister for at least doing that much.

However, I believe the bill still falls short, which raises some very important questions that we have to raise now and at committee and need to have addressed before we bring back the bill for final reading. Those questions are the following. Does the bill encourage pollution prevention and reduce the use of pesticides? Does it actually keep pesticides off the market until they are proven safe? Does it ban pesticides for cosmetic purposes? Does it require clear labelling of all toxic elements of pesticides? Does it provide a clear mandate for the pesticide management review agency? Does it put in place resources and a mechanism for independent, science based research about the long term impact of pesticides on human health?

Those questions remain outstanding. Those questions must be answered. We look forward to the debate in committee and to the government's attention to those very important issues.

Point of Order

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, before I proceed, I want to say that I totally agree with what my colleague had to say about the motion.

For those who are watching, it might be interesting to read the motion once again, to fully appreciate the comments that can be made throughout the debate. It was not supposed to be a votable motion, but it will be following a decision made by the Speaker of the House.

The motion reads as follows: “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”.

There is a part of this motion that we cannot disagree with, but there is also another part on which we cannot agree and, since this motion has been made a votable item, members will understand that we have to vote against it.

In the last few weeks, even the last few months, the Bloc Quebecois has made its position clear on the bills the government introduced to address the events of September 11 and the issues of international crime and terrorism.

I said at the time, and it still holds true, that we do not have any real example of how this policy has been implemented or abused. As my colleague mentioned earlier, there will always be the potential for abuse as long as the legislation opens the door to certain things, and the legislation in question does open the door to this kind of abuse. I remember stating very clearly in this House that, if the government had a clear vision on how to fight terrorism, it should have submitted its anti-terrorism legislative agenda.

What did it do? First, it introduced Bill C-36, which provided for a whole series of new powers for police and law enforcement officers. It included very broad definitions and infringed upon rights and freedoms, all under cover of ensuring national security.

I remember saying it. The police, the government and the ministers, to whom Bill C-36 gives great powers, bragged about these new powers. Twenty-four hours before this bill was introduced, one could not have imagined that such a piece of legislation would be introduced in this parliament, in a country called Canada. Canada is not a police state, as other countries may be.

Using as an excuse the events of September 11, the need to protect national security and the fact that the public was concerned, the government introduced Bill C-36. Even then, I had concerns about its application, and I still do. The fact that there has not been any abuse of these new powers so far does not mean that it will never happen.

In its great wisdom, the government did not unveil its entire legislative menu to fight terrorism. First, it put Bill C-36 through the House, and then it introduced another bill, Bill C-42, which went a little further. Unfortunately for the government, it went too far and met resistance.

We already had Bill C-36, which allowed electronic surveillance, gave increased powers to the police, and authorized arrests without a warrant. Then there was the whole issue of the sunset clause in the bill, which finally became a review clause. These powers already exists. Bill C-42, without giving increased powers, without providing for the establishment of military zones or something of the kind, went much too far, and it was just unacceptable.

Again today, we are debating Bill C-42; we are talking about it, but we have not adopted it. When will the government bring back Bill C-42? We will see.

However, we know that because of pressure from the United States, part of this bill was passed before Christmas because the U.S. had finally decided that no Canadian plane would be allowed to land in the U.S. if this part of the bill was not passed. We had no choice, economically, from the point of view of travelling and all that could result from refusing to pass that part of the legislation. We therefore had a vote and passed that part.

As for the legislation, as my colleague said earlier, the government seems to deal with in a piecemeal fashion. If the government really had a clear vision of the type of legislation needed to deal with terrorism effectively, it would not have gone about it this way. It would have introduced legislation as a package that we could have analyzed on the basis of our own experience and of the case law that exists in this country, with our way of doing things and with our charter of rights and freedoms. We could have analyzed the whole range of government initiatives to fight organized crime. Instead, it has been done bit by bit.

Worst yet, on top of giving excessive powers to some categories and putting forward legislation that is going too far, which I hear even from the police, the money is not forthcoming to make sure the act is implemented properly. It is all very nice to give powers to the police, but if we want these powers to be exercised properly, if we want that there be monitoring, to prevent abuse and to fight efficiently against terrorism, we must make sure we have the money to implement the act.

I can already hear the government say “We have allocated the money; we made an announcement”. Indeed, it announced it would invest $576 million over six years in national security, $21 million of which had already been announced even before September 11. However, it lumped it all together to make the amount look bigger, to make itself look good and to score political points. It said “Five hundred and seventy-six million dollars over five years”.

However, if we take away what had already been announced for various programs, we are left with $87 million a year of new money to implement the Anti-terrorism Act, increase monitoring at borders and in ports, when we know that the government's position on ports is to cut personnel. Indeed, there have been layoffs in major ports, in the ports of entry for containers and ships coming from abroad. The government has made cuts when it was supposed to enhance port security.

It is so true that, in this respect, I read recently in the paper that the Americans were going to put their own people in Canadian ports to monitor everything heading for the United States through Canada. This is going too far. Canada is loosing its sovereignty to foreign countries. On top of this, the border will be just about 100% monitored by the Americans.

Mr. Speaker, you seem to be in agreement with what I just said. I realize that what I am saying does not please the Liberals, but that is the reality. If Quebec were sovereign, we would have done things quite differently from the government across the way. This is another reason why Quebec must be sovereign, because we do things differently from the people across the way. Furthermore, it is the only way for Quebec to develop as it should.

However, I did not intend to talk about Quebec's sovereignty. Let us talk about Canada's sovereignty and the great Canadians opposite who kowtow to the Americans and give away a little more of Canada's sovereignty every day. One of the latest compromises is to allow Americans in Canadian ports to rule the roost with respect to the containers in transit to the United States.

This is the vision the members opposite have of Canada. I could have talked about this for hours, but it would seem that my time is up. This is a very interesting topic, but as my colleague said previously, we cannot support this motion for the reasons I mentioned and many other reasons, whether it pleases the government or not.

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, as you probably know already, I will be sharing my time with the member for Berthier—Montcalm. I rise today on this opposition day of the Progressive Conservative/Democratic Representative Coalition whose motion deals in part with national security.

At the outset, I would like to say that in spite of the fact that the last part of the motion is of some interest since it calls for greater involvement of parliament, the Bloc Quebecois will not support the motion.

We are not questioning the appropriateness of looking at the need to put in place new measures to improve and enhance public safety.

Our message to all those who were expecting to tear a strip off the Bloc for its position on national security is that, contrary to what the Prime Minister dared claim before the House not so long ago, the fact that the Bloc is refusing to give free rein to the Liberal government on defence and national security issues does not mean that we are taking the side of terrorists nor that we are more concerned about their fate than about the protection of honest citizens. To claim such a thing is pure demagoguery.

First of all, either I do not quite understand the scope of the motion before us or my Coalition colleagues were asleep last fall. As it stands now, their motion states that the House of Commons should condemn the government for its failure to implement a national security policy.

I will refer to Bill C-42, the Public Safety Act, and to Bill C-36, which became the Anti-terrorism Act. I hope this will juggle their memory.

I am willing to believe that, with regard to this last bill, the opportunity for the Coalition to speak on the topic was substantially limited by the passing of a time allocation motion. However, I find it rather astonishing that they managed to forget the theme which captured the attention of parliamentarians, the media and the population as a whole from September to December.

Moreover, the Anti-terrorism Act was, in terms of its impact on individual rights and freedoms, the most significant piece of legislation on any legislative agenda since the notorious and now infamous War Measures Act, from which Quebec suffered the abuse in October 1970.

We must be careful and not agree too quickly with the coalition when it states that the government has not implemented a public security policy. I think it is appropriate, indeed necessary, to put things into perspective.

First of all, let me go over some of the security measures included in Bill C-42, which is still before the House at second reading.

First, the bill authorizes ministers and delegated officers to make security measures and interim orders in order to respond to security threats.

Second, it implements the Inter-American Convention against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunitions, Explosives, and Other Related Materials.

Third, it provides for better control over the export and transfer of technology.

Fourth, it allows a senior immigration officer to suspend the consideration of a refugee claim.

It also creates military security zones.

Furthermore, it extends the powers of the National Energy Board to include matters relating to the security of pipelines and international power lines.

Finally, it authorizes the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to disclose information to the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada.

Now, in the Anti-terrorism Act, the government took the following measures.

First, it created a whole series of offences related to terrorism.

Second, it created new offences to counter intelligence gathering activities, including the unauthorized communication of special operational information.

Third, the rules of evidence were changed so as to allow the non-disclosure of evidence that could be prejudicial to national defence or to national security.

Then there is the possibility of intercepting communications without prior judicial authorization. Lastly, the Minister of Justice has the discretionary power to exempt information from the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act.

Obviously, these measures were not taken under a national security policy, but the fact remains that these are 12 major measures, some of which went so far that we had to vote against the Anti-terrorism Act and we will have to do the same for Bill C-42. Moreover, there is a most important point that needs to be mentioned. Members should not forget that, in the most recent budget, which was tabled in December of last year, security got the lion's share with $7.7 billion over five years.

The fundamental question we must ask ourselves is not whether the government should have taken or should be taking these security measures under a comprehensive, integrated, national policy or something like that. In fact, what is important is not the colour of the envelope but its content.

Therefore, we must ask ourselves if the government is showing initiative and if it is taking the appropriate measures. The answer to both these questions seems obvious to me. It is no in both cases.

With regard to the level of initiative shown by the government, one cannot escape the fact that this government is constantly in reactive mode. Seeing how it runs the country on a piecemeal basis, one does not have to look any further to find the reasons why the Americans are dictating the approach we should be taking with regard to security.

The Liberals have no idea what the term “proactive” means. The recent events that unfolded just confirmed what we already knew.

Furthermore, we have denounced the relevance of these measures on countless occasions throughout the legislative process involving Bills C-36 and C-42. We repeat this again today: the measures proposed by the government do not establish a fair balance between security and freedoms.

Some will say that, contrary to what we fear, Canada has not become a police state. However, even if the debate remains purely in the realm of the theoretical, the problem lies not in the fact that there has not yet been any abuses of wiretapping or any arbitrary arrests. The problem is that this possibility exists within the text of the bill. Also, it is helpful to remember that since Bill C-36 was passed, the crisis has subsided to a large extent and these measures have yet to be put to the test. The situation could be quite different if there were another crisis.

As well, if the measures proposed were as effective as the government claims, how can it explain the backlog at the borders and the fact that drug imports have not diminished since Operation Printemps 2001 and the tightening of border security since September 11?

In its February 2002 report entitled “Canadian Security and Military Preparedness”, the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence examined the most vulnerable elements that the terrorists could make use of. The committee heard a wide range of witnesses including representatives of organizations responsible for the various aspects of security in the Montreal-Dorval and Vancouver international airports and in the maritime ports of Halifax, Vancouver and Montreal. In so doing the committee had the opportunity of examining the capabilities and security plans of these organizations. Moreover, the committee based its discussions and conclusions on the following premises:

1. The efficient use of security intelligence can help reduce the risks to society.

2. The limited resources available force us to discriminate in favour of cooperation both internally and externally.

3. The use of technology can enhance the effectiveness of security measures exponentially.

On the other hand, solutions as simple and affordable as the erection of a fenced security perimeter and a monitoring system could certainly increase port security. I cannot believe we needed the Senate to come up with that.

In conclusion, while this motion has a certain interest, the Bloc will not support it essentially because it is vague, ambiguous and too general to risk tying our hands for.

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Chatham--Kent Essex.

I was a little surprised to read the content of today's motion because anyone who says that the government does not have a national security policy either has not been paying attention to the actions taken by the government over the past six months or just plain does not know what they are talking about.

We know that Canadians have been paying attention because they have voiced strongly and clearly their consistent approval of the government's actions since September 11.

The government's response to the tragic events of September 11 reflects the principles of our national security policy. Our response was immediate and it was co-ordinated. It was driven by the continued need to ensure the national and economic security of Canadians.

Canadian response to September 11 was immediate. About 250 flights and 33,000 airline passengers were diverted from U.S. destinations to Canadian airports. Officials from the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, Citizenship and Immigration Canada and the RCMP went on a heightened state of alert at all border points. Security and law enforcement agencies went into a full court press to investigate terrorism in co-operation with their U.S. counterparts. Ships were put to sea, aircraft was put on alert, and the military was put on standby.

On October 1 the Prime Minister established the ad hoc committee of ministers on public security and anti-terrorism. This committee was tasked with ensuring and building, where necessary, a rapid and co-ordinated response to the new threat environment. Some of the key elements that have been advanced include the following: identifying an initial programming package for this current fiscal year of $280 million for security, intelligence and law enforcement departments and agencies to heighten border security and to undertake initiatives to enhance the security of Canadians; passage of the anti-terrorism act, Bill C-36, to put the communications and security establishment on a legislative footing with a mandate to collect intelligence on international terrorism; and the tabling of Bill C-42, the public safety act, primarily aimed at implementing international conventions on controlling biological weapons and enhancing air transportation security.

The 2001 budget clearly identified the two interrelated challenges which are to maintain a strong and stable economy and to protect Canadians.

These goals have been partly achieved by strengthening personal and economic security and by keeping terrorists out of the country and maintaining an open and efficient border.

In all, the budget has committed a total of $7.7 billion over the next five years to enhance the security of Canadians by increasing resources to our intelligence and police agencies, by enhancing screening of new entrants to Canada and by strengthening air security.

Moreover, $1.2 billion will be invested in border security, not only to address the concerns about security but also to improve long term economic opportunities by maintaining a more open and efficient border between Canada and the United States.

Of the more than $1.2 billion to be invested in border infrastructures, $646 million will be used to enhance security at the border and facilitate the movement of people and goods between Canada and the United States.

In particular, the focus of the budget is on: new technology to help Canada Customs and Revenue Agency facilitate the passage of goods and people at border crossing points; new Canadian multi-agency integrated border enforcement teams to co-ordinate intelligence and enforcement efforts along the Canada-U.S. border; advanced information sharing technology to help customs officers screen travellers arriving at airports and other border entry points; better equipment for detecting explosives, firearms and other dangers without delaying the flow of legitimate commerce and tourism; and new secure Internet-based technology to ease customs compliance for small business.

We must remember however that our concern for public security is matched by and intrinsically linked with our concern for economic security.

With almost half of our GDP dependent on access to the U.S. market, it is imperative that our shared border be kept open, even as we make it more secure. Most people are aware that Canada and the United States have been working on the smart border action plan since December 2001. My U.S. counterpart on this initiative, Governor Tom Ridge, has stated:

This Smart Border declaration is an agreement between two independent sovereign nations to work together--to solve problems of mutual interest that affect the security and safety, as well as the economic well-being of the citizens in each country.

These issues however are not new. We did not discover border security and border management on September 11. It is an integral part of the government to government relationship that operates every day in hundreds of ways. In fact, Canada and the U.S. share the most extensive bilateral co-operation in the world focused on managing our borders and mutual security.

The action plan that Governor Ridge and I agreed to on December 12 recognizes that link between public and economic security. We cannot adequately protect our citizens if our economies are barricaded. Likewise, our economies cannot function if our citizens do not have confidence in their security. The smart border discussions, which are frequent and productive, build on a long history of border co-operation between Canada and the United States.

All steps that we have undertaken, both before and after September 11, recognize that the guiding principles for a 21st century border include streamlining and harmonizing border policies and management, expanding co-operation at and beyond the border and collaborating on common threats outside of Canada and the United States.

They demonstrate our shared belief that the border should support open trade and travel while defending its people and economies against threats to the social and economic well-being of both countries. We are developing risk management solutions that facilitate the flow of low risk people and goods while concentrating greater resources on flows that may pose a threat to our two countries.

Last Friday in Washington, D.C., Governor Ridge and I announced the expansion of NEXUS, the risk management system for processing travellers. Our customs agencies are working out the details of a similar system for commercial goods.

These initiatives will benefit from a new $600 million program to improve the infrastructure, including highways, commercial vehicle processing centres and the technology needed at the major entry points.

This program will be implemented with the cooperation of public and private partners from both sides of the border.

September 11 showed us that even in an age of globalization we need to remain vigilant that our borders continue to meet our security needs while allowing the growing transborder trade to move swiftly and efficiently.

The smart border that we are building with the United States through strategic planning, risk management and co-ordinated infrastructure will serve as a model to the world. Combined with the new security measures that we have introduced in legislation and in the budget, our border innovations demonstrate that the government is fulfilling its responsibility to protect the security of Canadians and the open economy upon which our way of life depends.

Supply

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on behalf of the NDP caucus today.

I begin by saying, with respect to the controversy earlier today about whether or not this motion by the Conservative Party should be votable, that one wonders whether or not, as someone who contests whether or not the motion should be votable, we will in fact actually vote.

However the matter before us is the motion and, I would say, without prejudice to whether or not we should be voting on it, that the motion is far too general to elicit the kind of support that I think perhaps the member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough might have been looking for from all opposition parties.

While there are certainly things for which we would want to be critical of the government and criticisms that we might well share with the member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough, there might be other criticisms that we do not share. The member cannot simply ask us to sign on to a general condemnation of the government for its failure to implement a national security policy to address the broad range of security issues when we do not know the list of issues that the member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough wants the government to address. I realize that he outlined some of those things in his speech but the motion, as it reads and if it were to be passed or, for that matter, approved by any party or individual, would be open to interpretations.

For instance, the NDP was critical of the government, not for its failure to implement a particular security policy when it came to anti-terrorism legislation but for, in our judgment, going too far when it came to anti-terrorism legislation. Therefore it would be difficult for us to support the motion because it seems to imply that, with respect to a broad range of issues having to do with security, the government has not gone far enough.

When Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism legislation, was before the House, one of our criticisms was that we felt the government had gone too far. We also felt that way with respect to Bill C-35 and we feel that way with respect to Bill C-42, which now seems to be on the back burner but which is nevertheless still on the order paper. Is it the position of the Progressive Conservative Party that Bill C-42 is part of the government's failure, that it does not go far enough?

These are all the kinds of interpretations that could be attached to support this particular motion because it is in fact so general. It is one of the reasons why I do not see how we could support this particular motion as it stands.

Because it has come up in debate, is the motion intended to refer in some codified way to the Senate report on security? If that is the case, perhaps a motion saying that we adopt the recommendations of the recent Senate committee on security would have been in order. At least we then could have debated what was in that particular report.

Having listened to the debate a bit today, it seemed to me from time to time that we were vicariously debating the report that was brought forward in the Senate with respect to security. The allusion in the motion to ports of entry and borders, for instance, is clearly a reference to a subject matter of concern that the Senate committee report addressed itself to.

Having said that, with respect to ports and security matters having to do with ports, I would like to put on the record once again that the NDP felt at the time and feels still that the privatization of ports and the elimination of the national harbour police were serious mistakes.

Addressing whatever security concerns there may be with respect to our ports would be to reinstitute a police force dedicated to port security, instead of having the municipal police and the RCMP trying to do a job that in our judgment should be done by a police force dedicated to that particular purpose.

To me, it always makes sense to have people who are vocationally attached to a particular task. I think that is the way the members of the national harbour police worked when they were in existence. They were not municipal police who might be looking after port security this year, looking after the vice squad next year and looking after something else the next year. Their job was port security and they were there for the long haul.

However it has become a fad in the last 10 to 20 years to do away with dedicated services of any kind and to turn everything over to--I am not sure what to call it, but nobody ever does anything for the long haul any more. They are just in there for the duration of a contract when things are privatized, or in the case of what we are talking about here in terms of ports police, we do not have a police force dedicated to port security but we have a number of police officers in various police forces who are assigned from time to time to port security. This is not a criticism of them. They are put in a very difficult position and, as the member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough and others have said and quite rightly, are often asked to do the job without adequate resources.

We cannot have security on the cheap. Yet in some ways we are reaping now what was sown over the last 10, 15, 20 years whereby governments, through various public policy initiatives, generally in the way of deregulation, privatization, contracting out and doing away with things that were directly funded by government, tried to do things on the cheap that they used to do in a dedicated way and they used to do by way of paying whatever it cost to get the job done and to have the job done well.

Now the chickens are coming home to roost. It was fine as long as, to put the obvious, everything was fine, but now that things are not fine we find that there are all kinds of holes in the system.

It will not do, while we are alluding to the Senate report, to impugn the integrity of a lot of people who work at the ports.

There seems to be an underlying theme in the Senate report that is of concern to us and I think of concern to many others that somehow its the workers in the ports who are the problem.

A very good article in the Province by Christina Montgomery talks about some of the things wrong with the Senate report. She highlights, for instance, the disbandonment of the ports police which I have already mentioned. She also takes issue with the way in which the report implies that somehow its the unions that are at fault for whatever security problems there may be at our ports. I would like to put that on the record.

Returning to the matter of resources, the fact is that a lot of our ports are underpoliced. Whether we return to a national harbour police, a national ports police or however we do it, we will need a lot more resources at our ports, along the borders. Others have spoken of the longest undefended border. It is undefended and that is part of the problem. It is undefended from a lot of things.

I do not, and I do not think anybody does, want to see the border become a difficult place for ordinary Canadians and Americans to go back and forth and for commerce to transpire. The fact is that we have been under-resourcing our security personnel wherever we find them, whether we find them at customs, in the ports, in the RCMP or wherever Canadians are called upon to engage in security tasks for the public there has been a pattern of underfunding and under-resourcing these tasks for a long time and it is coming home to roost.

If the government is serious about security, I would urge it to get serious about funding security. Its only major initiative so far, which I think was wrong, has been to bring in the anti-terrorism legislation which I think, in some respects, goes beyond targeting terrorists to making it possible to make life miserable for legitimate, democratic dissent in this country.

A couple of weeks ago I had an opportunity to meet at a forum with the United Steelworkers of America which has many thousands of members in the security industry. The United Steelworkers were saying to the Deputy Prime Minister, who is in charge of security, that they wanted to sit down and talk about the security industry and talk about national standards for training, certification and pay.

One of the problems in the security industry, particularly as it pertains to the private security industry which guards much of our infrastructure, which we are now told we should be worried about in terms of possible terrorist attacks, is that a lot of that infrastructure is provided on a private for profit basis. It is also not necessarily the best kind of security that we could ask for. People in the security industry know that. They would like to see higher standards, better training and the kind of pay that would create in that industry people who would be dedicated to that particular task. If they were paid well enough they would stay at it and do the job properly. They would not feel that they had to move on because of an offer of a better paying job somewhere else.

All these things are on our mind as we reflect upon the Tory motion that we have here today. We cannot support the motion as it is. We reiterate our contention that part of the solution for addressing the security problems at our ports is the reintroduction of a dedicated national harbours or ports police.

We agree with others who say that the resources are a great part of the problem and that there is a need for the government to make sure that our police and security forces, in the broadest possible sense of the word, have the resources to do the job that they are being asked to do.

The NDP cannot support the motion because we find it to be too general. We do not want to condemn the government holus-bolus or support the government holus-bolus on this. It has done some things right and some things wrong. Simply to have a motion which condemns the government without saying what it is it is being condemned for does not provide the opportunity for the kind of detailed debate that we would like to have in the House.

I remind hon. members that even though they might not have supported the NDP motion during the week before we broke, there were 12 things that we thought the government should be doing. Members could get up and disagree with those 12 things but they knew what we were talking about. We do not have a similar kind of motion before us here today.

With respect to the final phrase in the motion calling “on the government to reassert Parliament's relevance in these and other public policy issues”, I am not entirely sure what the member means here. If this is a general call for parliamentary reform, which would restore parliament's relevance in these and other public issues, of course we support that. I would say that as an individual member of parliament I have supported this kind of effort all the time I have been here.

However I am not sure whether this final phrase was supposed to entice people to vote for the rest of the motion, in spite of the fact that it had so little content, out of our love for parliamentary reform, or what effect it was supposed to have on us. In any event, we certainly would like to see parliament's relevance reasserted in these and other public policy issues.

With all due respect to the members of the PC/DRC coalition who are in the House now, and I know none of them were here when what I am about to speak of happened. One of the reasons why parliament suffers from a lack of relevance in these and other public policy issues is because of what was done to parliament between 1984 and 1993 when the Conservatives were in power.

Much of what we now experience in opposition, the frustration and powerlessness, the feeling of being left out of decisions taken in the Prime Minister's Office and elsewhere, a lot of these trends, if not begun, were solidified and consolidated under the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party between 1984 and 1993.

What is of course tragic, ironic and, in the final analysis, despicable is that the party that in its days as official opposition that opposed these measures has now been in power for nine years and has done absolutely nothing to undo the damage that it so loudly protested at that time.

I certainly join with members of the PC/DRC in calling once again on another government, in another time, in the same place, to reassert parliament's relevance in these and other public policy issues.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Saint-Jean, for having presented most of the Bloc Quebecois' position on the question of freedom and security. My colleague is absolutely right.

The great challenge for democratic society, following the events of September 11, is to try to protect our values and freedoms while guaranteeing security throughout the country and Quebec, as far as we are concerned. That was the great challenge.

The proposal moved by the Conservative Party and the coalition is to implement a national security policy.

If we look at what the government has on the shelf, Bill C-42, which my colleague from Saint-Jean spoke to so well, we see that this is a bill that violates our rights and freedoms, as far as we are concerned. When a bill allows the federal government to create military security zones without even asking the provinces for authorization, then it is a violation of the rights and freedoms of the citizens of these provinces and of Quebecers, who are our chief concern.

When ministers are allowed to declare special zones of intervention in areas comes under their departments' responsibilities—there are more than 12 ministers who could order this type of zone—and once an order is given, it need not meet the requirements of the Privy Council when regulations are passed, in other words, to test if it conforms to the charter of rights and freedoms, rights are being violated. So, ministers are allowed to issue orders which may contravene the charter, which would come into effect immediately and which could later be validated or invalidated depending on the charter of rights and freedoms. Many powers are being given to authorities and to ministers without the authorization of this House and without the authorization of the Privy Council, and at the same time, powers are being given to officials who advise the ministers. We saw what happened with the Minister of Health, who authorized expenses that breached the Patent Act.

This is the difficult reality, respecting individual rights and providing security at the same time. This is not clear in the proposal moved by the Conservative Party and the coalition.

We must remember—and this will allow me to get into one of the parts of their interventions, which is enhanced security in Canada's ports and harbours—and never forget that, in 1987, it was the Progressive Conservative Party that deregulated transportation throughout Canada. It is this party that entrusted port or airport authorities with the responsibility of managing security. It decided to entrust the private sector with this responsibility and thus ensured that the government would no longer provide money for security.

The Liberal government is using the same strategy. It talked about airline security. It decided to invest $2.2 billion over five years, but it chose once again to impose on users a tax of $12, or $24 for a return ticket. This tax has been condemned by all the travel associations throughout Canadian regions and by the whole airline industry. However, this is the strategy that the Conservatives had used at the time.

And we are supposed to believe them now? They want a new policy on security, but they never talk about the fact that it will take public money to really be able to have an integrated policy.

Nowadays, they rely on the famous Senate report. The Senate report was based on a 1996 analysis. They show percentages of port workers who allegedly have criminal records. However, when we look into this, we see that unions do not maintain a file on criminal records, nor does the employer.

So there is no structure in place to keep track of port workers' criminal records. The simple reason is that these people are those who are carrying out trans-shipment; they are not in charge of security. A Senate report informed us last week that there are alleged criminals among workers, while no port worker has been accused of trafficking or whatever in the last 20 years.

Once again, they are attacking workers. However, the great majority of them, in fact almost all of them, are not responsible for the situation. They are guilty of nothing at all. No port worker has been accused of traffic in the last 20 years. Today, the Senate is saying, “There is a lot of corruption, infiltration on the part of those who work in ports, the stevedores, those who do transshipments, but who are not in charge of security”.

Are we to blame the employees for a failure that began in 1987 under the Tories? That is what they have done. After the events of September 11, they accused the employees, those men and women who work in airports, of not having done their job properly. For decades now, year after year, there have been cuts to security services. The private companies was made to pay for that, and it turned to the lowest bidder. Well, we got what we paid for. That is the reality.

Nothing in the Progressive Conservative Party's proposal says that the government should invest some considerable amount of money, that it should increase the number of security workers in ports and airports. We should give them decent salaries and ongoing training.

There most certainly was no ISO security program for employees involved in either port or airport security. They have no ongoing training; there was no on the job training. Thought was given to it after the events of September 11.

This all dates back to 1987, with the beginning of deregulation. The administration of ports and airports was entrusted to the private sector. All the companies that would benefit from these infrastructures had to meet their costs, so obviously they opted for the cheapest, and this had the effect of providing less security. We know what happened as a result.

Today, efforts are being made to remedy this. National security policies are wanted. The Bloc Quebecois says again: if there is a national security policy, it must not encroach on the rights and freedoms so dearly won over the entire course of the history of Canada, and of Quebec in particular.

This is a challenge for a great government, which leads me to conclude that the Liberal Party will never be a great government. It has always governed full speed ahead, but what will always differentiate it from a great government is that it has never been, and will never be, capable of making the right decisions at the right time.

Once again, this is what the motion put forward by the Progressive Conservative Party and the coalition does. As an opposition party, they do not yet know how to move a real motion, which might have resulted in some money for the whole security issue, both in ports and in airports. Port and airport workers could then be given more responsibility, decent pay and appropriate training. It would ensure that all those working in security services would have a chance to live in a safe environment, with respect for individual rights and freedoms.

It is with regret that the Bloc Quebecois will be voting against the motion put forward by the Progressive Conservative Party and the coalition. In our view, this motion does not go far enough to protect individual rights and freedoms. Nor does it go far enough with respect to the contribution that should be made by the Government of Canada, which is building up a surplus in the billions.

In answer to the questions asked by the Bloc Quebecois yesterday, the Minister of Finance was unable to forecast the surplus for the period ending three weeks from now. We will see in a few weeks. He refused to answer the question. As we well know, the surplus will be over $9 billion. This amount, or at least a good portion of it, could have been used for such things as security, thus making it unnecessary to impose a $12 and a $24 tax on air travel, which will once again overtax the regions of Quebec and of Canada.

I repeat, when the government wants to discourage people from smoking, it increases tobacco taxes. In this case, it is increasing taxes on air travel. It creates a tax on air travel and thinks that it will encourage people to take the plane.

The Bloc Quebecois will therefore have no choice but to vote against the motion put forward today.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, precisely, this may be where the whole problem lies. The hon. member who just spoke cannot give me the exact definition of a national security policy. Since he cannot provide that definition, this means that all members in this House present their party's view or their collective view.

Earlier, I mentioned that the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford spoke at length on the registry of sexual offenders. Another one will deal at length on another issue, while another yet will say that Bill C-36 or Bill C-42, which I tried to define earlier, did not go far enough. As for us, we say that the government went too far.

Until we have a definition of security policy, it is hard for us to give our support. I could be asked “Do you agree to change the national defence policy?” This is not in the motion, but I could include it, because it is indeed a security policy. I would say “Yes, I agree on a new white paper, because the existing national defence white paper is based on the 1994 white paper”. We are now in 2002 and the situation has evolved extremely quickly, as evidenced by the events of September 11. We could never have imagined what happened. Ours was a typical national defence strategy, and it was based on previous wars.

If the motion said that, I would support it. But we do not know what it says. I could also interpret it and say “The Minister of Foreign Affairs should also align his policy with that of national defence, so as to know how to intervene in various existing conflicts”. This is my personal interpretation, based on a part of the motion that is vague enough to allow everyone to give it their own interpretation.

Indeed, the problem is that we cannot support such a broad interpretation. The motion should be much more specific. Again, this is why we cannot support it.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, first I would like to advise the House that I am pleased to share my time with my hon. colleague, the member for Argenteuil--Papineau--Mirabel. I would also like to add that I will not be touching on the discussions that took place this morning regarding procedural issues, as this was debated for one hour. In my opinion, the Speaker of the House of Commons has quite a hot potato to deal with. It will be interesting now to see how he will get rid of it.

There has been much debate about the proposal before us. As far as we are concerned, there is a problem with the wording of the motion. The comments made my colleague from Langley--Abbotsford only serve to demonstrate this fact. He was already quite happy to broaden the scope of this motion, particularly when it comes to implementing a national security policy.

Obviously the motion refers to areas where we agree that actions must be taken, whether it be at ports, borders—I will comment on this briefly—and in particular, the relevance of Parliament in these matters. However, when it comes to a national security policy, this is quite different in scope, and this scope is interpreted in almost individual terms. Everyone has their own ideas about where action should be taken. As I mentioned, my colleague from Langley--Abbotsford certainly does, and this is what concerns us.

Yesterday we remembered the events of September 11; it was six months ago to the day. Immediately after the events, the Bloc Quebecois took a very responsible attitude by telling the government, “We will support you”. This was done in a general manner. We said, “We would not, however, accept too many restrictions on the freedoms of Quebecers and Canadians, because if this were to occur, if we get to the point where we are violating freedoms, the terrorists will have won”.

So when the government introduced the first bills in response, we mostly supported them at first and second reading. However, we reached the point where we felt that the government crossed the line that must not be crossed, the line that violated the rights and freedoms of Quebecers and Canadians.

As an example, there is Bill C-36, the famous anti-terrorism bill. There are all sorts of things concerning human rights, the protection of privacy and access to information, where, in our opinion, people's rights were trampled on.

Consequently, we wanted to put forward important clauses ensuring that there would be a time limit. Everybody remembers the “sunset clause”; it was said that there ought to be a review after three years. Unfortunately, the government did not listen to us. It brought in a so-called sunset clause, which is not really one. It was made meaningless because it applies only to two things: detention and another concept that is minor to us. The government should have done more, in our opinion.

The same thing applies to the bill's definition of terrorist activity. Terrorist activity was very broadly defined, and that concerned us, because we believe that anyone could be considered a terrorist, even a person who throws a rock at a police officer during a demonstration. Some Liberal members had stretched the concept to such an extent. We believed that it was going too far. So we voted against the bill at third reading.

It is the same thing with Bill C-42, the infamous omnibus bill that amended 20 pieces of legislation. We had a lot to say about military security zones, because we know what this means. The War Measures Act had a terrible impact on Quebecers, and we do not want any bill to give the government the go ahead to inflict such hardship on the public again.

So, Bill C-42, the omnibus bill amending 20 pieces of legislation, is just another example I wanted to give concerning military security zones. We were also afraid that many other provisions in that bill would violate the rights and freedoms of Quebecers and Canadians.

The motion brought forward by our friends from the PC/DR Coalition is not totally negative. I am also concerned about the security at our ports and harbours. In fact, a Senate committee has released an excellent report describing their concerns about this issue. I think security in this area should be reinforced.

Will voting on this motion, as it stands today, automatically lead to more severe measures? I am not sure about that. I have more bad than good to say about this motion. However, I wish to remain positive and tell my friends from the PC/DR Coalition that they did raise some very interesting issues. However, we still have problems with the way the motion was drafted.

The motion also mentions borders. Only yesterday, I gave an interview to TVA because, in my region, we are very concerned. My riding borders on Vermont and the State of New York.

We have learned that, after a very arbitrary test, a number of regular customs officers who had always received excellent appraisal reports were let go and replaced by students. I want it known that I have nothing against the students, but the government seems to be taking a penny wise and pound foolish approach right now, to the detriment of security.

Under the legislation, the people laid off had been given increased powers; they could use pepper spray and other means to stop terrorists. They could use handcuffs or a baton, which the students cannot. By replacing these customs officers with students, the government is saving approximately $10 per person an hour because they were paid $20 an hour. When security is ignored, there is a problem. That is the point raised in our colleague's motion. But unfortunately I do not think that the positive aspects are enough to offset the problems with the motion's wording.

It is the same when it comes to parliament's relevance. It is very clever to include it in the motion because, in fact, Bloc Quebecois members have been saying that the government is not transparent enough. Furthermore, only yesterday, I told a Journal de Montréal journalist that I had learned more in a three hour briefing session with the Americans in Tampa Bay last month than during the entire period following the September 11 attacks.

The Americans assembled parliamentarians, explained to them where the special force was, how many were taking part in it, and what operations were next. We do not have that here. Parliament is kept in the dark. When I say parliament, I do not mean the cabinet; I mean opposition members and Liberal backbenchers. They do not know what is going on, except when they attend a briefing such as that given by the National Defence chief of staff last week, at which he explained in very vague terms what is happening.

This is deplorable. Things have gotten to the point that when the Minister of National Defence announces that he is going to send troops somewhere, we are told: “The troops will be leaving tomorrow, but tomorrow night you will have a chance to discuss this in the House because we are going to hold a take-note debate at that time”. This is a new label for empty debating with no opportunity to vote.

It seems to me that, when issues as important as deploying troops are concerned, it is essential for Parliament to be informed, for them to be fully debated, and for members to have the opportunity to vote.

I was elected as an MP in order to speak and to advance my views. Doing so, however, does not just mean speaking out. We also need to be able to rise and announce how we will be voting on behalf of our constituents. This is a rarity, particularly in connection with security matters.

As far as the government is concerned, their culture is still one of secrecy. The Minister of National Defence, along with a small group, has given himself the exclusive right to decide on security, and then to advise us of the decision. We are told after the decision has been made “If you do not like it, you can express your views in a debate that will not lead anywhere because there will be no vote”.

I find our colleague's motion to be a skillful one, but unfortunately as I have said, it is not worded sufficiently clearly as far as implementation of a national policy is concerned, one which underlies all manner of bills that go far beyond this, such as C-36 and C-42. Unfortunately, I must inform my colleagues that we will have to find other ways of solving these problems.

This motion is not going to be the way to do it, because it implies a number of negative impacts as far as restricting the freedoms of Canadians and Quebecers is concerned.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to try to nudge the debate a little closer to the topic. The mover of the motion proposed the motion and we seem to be dealing with all kinds of different topics such as the way the deficit was 5, 10, 15 and 20 years ago, firearms legislation and helicopter purchases.

I remind colleagues, and perhaps the mover of the motion, that the subject is national security generally. The opposition has moved the motion so inevitably it will be rhetorical. Inevitably it will be political and sometimes wilfully blind to some of the facts. However that is the way we operate around here. Our job is to try to contribute things to the debate that will keep us on topic.

National security is very much a challenge of responding to and managing risk. It is pretty clear to everyone that the perceived risk pre-September 11 is different from the risk we see now. Most of the risk we have had to encounter was risk targeted at our American neighbours.

Pre-September 11 these risks did not seem to be targeted directly at Canada, but these days national security is an international item. It has an international dynamic. It is not just domestic. We must work with our partners internationally to deal with managing the risk. When one of our international partners is at risk our legislation and our policy are to assume that we also are at risk and will collaborate with them.

The December 12 announcement of a 30 point action plan by this government and by the government of the U.S.A. reflects the fact that security in North America is pretty much pooled together. That 30 point action plan was not accomplished overnight. It is a wish list that will span out over several years. The 30 point plan became a much shorter 8 point plan, I think it was, by March 8 when our minister met with his U.S. counterpart, Mr. Ridge.

Many things are going on and one of the challenges of responding to security threats is that the actual response by government is not made public necessarily at the time the response is taken. One element of dealing with security is that its elements are not usually made public, at least in an aggressive, press release kind of way.

The March 8 announcement included improvements to our Canada-U.S. border screening operations and a joint program to address the risk of security breaches involving shipping container traffic at our seaports. These joint teams will now be developing action plans for Canadian and U.S. ports across the northern tier of the U.S. or the southern tier of Canada.

They will find problems. They know what they are. The member opposite who moved the motion has referred to the problem of organized crime in more than one of our seaports. It is a fact that police have told us at committees of the House and apparently of the Senate that we do not control container traffic. It is controlled by workers at the ports. Statistically speaking approximately half the workers in some of those ports have criminal records, which does not mean they are not following the rules but it does raise concerns. I for one have concluded that we do not control sufficiently our container traffic coming into our ports. I will not say which one.

We have a serious problem which can only be addressed by government. What we have heard publicly so far from the people who manage the seaports is not accurate. I assume some of us in this place will be engaged in further debate on that.

One of the problems with security matters is that they often get siloed into different subject and ministry areas. The difference among health, policing, customs and military security creates a great challenge for modern government.

We have tried to address it by placing one minister at the cabinet table with an ad hoc committee of relevant ministers. The Americans have tried a different route by using a non-cabinet minister to try to bring things together. There were challenges on both sides of the border. Both sides are working with these challenges and have attempted perhaps to low ball the turf wars that occur between different agencies within government.

Our problems are analogous to the kinds of problems in that regard of our American neighbours. Our response to terrorism includes two pieces of legislation: one passed by the House, Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism bill, and Bill C-42 which is before the House. It will certainly have more debate here. Those are good faith strong attempts, strong responses by the government to deal with legislative weaknesses of which we perhaps were not aware before September 11. The same has happened in many other countries around the world as we try to remediate our domestic legislation to respond to the very real threats out there.

The government reconstituted the national security subcommittee of the justice committee. The phone calls went out within days after September 11. Members of the House will be working on that committee in an attempt to provide focus for the House on the envelope of national security, which I have already said is somewhat segmented, inevitably so, between different ministries and different agencies within government.

In the motion today is what I regard as a silly throwaway comment asking the government to try to make parliament more relevant. It is not the job of the government to make parliament more relevant. It is the job of parliamentarians. Let us please stop asking government, which is several hundred thousand people strong working outside the House, to try to make the House more relevant. This is our job. Anyone in the House who asks some nameless, faceless person in government to help us make the House more relevant is whistling, dreaming.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to enter the debate on national security which remains a key concern for all Canadians I believe. I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Scarborough--Rouge River.

On behalf of the solicitor general, I assure you, Mr. Speaker, and all members of parliament that national security and public safety continue to be the number one priority and the top priority for the Government of Canada.

The Solicitor General of Canada has a leadership role within the Government of Canada for protecting Canadians and helping them to maintain a peaceful and safe society.

Many other ministers of the government, including departments and agencies, are also key partners in this very important area in the fight against terrorism, including my hon. colleagues from justice, CCRA, CIC, DFAIT, national defence, Transport Canada and Health Canada. We all work closely with our federal partners on a daily basis through a variety of informal and formal meetings to ensure that the government's overall public safety strategy is co-ordinated and effective.

The ad hoc ministers' committee on public security and anti-terrorism as well as the deputy ministers' committee on public safety are prime examples of interdepartmental co-ordination.

The portfolio of the Solicitor General of Canada also co-operates with federal, provincial and territorial partners in a number of ways to share information, consult on major initiatives and to reach consensus on proposed criminal justice reforms. These include, for example, ministers responsible for justice, deputy ministers responsible for justice, co-ordinating committees of senior officials and several subcommittees and working groups to examine specific policy issues.

In particular, a new federal-provincial-territorial deputies committee has just been formed to ensure co-ordination among all jurisdictions in their approach to anti-terrorism and public safety issues.

Strong partnerships with stakeholders is vital to the work of the Solicitor General of Canada. We encourage and actively support co-operation with our non-governmental partners, including provincial and municipal police forces, and emergency firstline responders through consultation, information sharing, exchange of expertise and knowledge, training and the provision of resources.

It goes without saying that since September 11 counterterrorism is a top priority for police and security agencies the world over. It is a top priority here at home too for the RCMP, for CSIS and for law enforcement officials across Canada.

The primary role of the Government of Canada is to lead this fight against terrorism at national and international levels. The government is doing so through new legislation and several important initiatives announced in the last two federal budgets.

Since the year 2000, the Government of Canada has dedicated a total of $9.5 billion to public safety and national security, including $7.7 billion in the December 2001 budget. The comprehensive set of measures outlined in budget 2001 are designed to keep Canada safe, keep terrorists out and keep our borders open. To this end, it includes major investments to equip and deploy more intelligence and frontline investigative personnel, improve co-ordination among law enforcement, intelligence and national security agencies, and to boost marine security and safety to the tune of $1.6 million. It also includes improving the screening of immigrants, refugee claimants and visitors to the tune of $1 billion; creating a new air security organization, assigning armed undercover police officers on Canadian aircraft, purchasing explosive detection equipment and enhancing policing to the tune of $2.2 billion; and finally, enhancing border security and improving the infrastructure that supports major border crossings to ensure the legitimate flow of people and goods, which is so important to our economy, to the tune of $1.2 billion.

Furthermore, under Canada's anti-terrorism plan, key federal agencies responsible for public security, such as the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, will receive substantial new funding to enhance their counterterrorism capacity and priorities.

CSIS will receive an additional $334 million over five years which will be used to boost its frontline security intelligence capacity. The RCMP will receive an additional $576 million which will bring new technology on line and put more officers to work on national security matters.

Under Canada's anti-terrorism plan, specific federal support for provinces, territories and municipalities include the establishment of new integrated national security enforcement teams, INSETs, and increased integrated border enforcement teams, IBETs, by the RCMP with provision for the salaries of INSET members seconded from other jurisdictions.

These are all important measures and, while the focus is on counterterrorism, initiatives undertaken on this front have had ripple effects that will benefit organized crime investigations, community policing and policing and law enforcement in general. What these measures do is establish a framework to ensure a high level of public security and safety for Canadians wherever they live in a national security framework.

Federal anti-terrorism initiatives will clearly strengthen the criminal justice system on a national basis. All jurisdictions will benefit from the resulting tools, expertise, new or expanded programs and infrastructure. These benefits will continue over a long period of time.

As a result of the events that took place on September 11, the Government of Canada and the U.S. administration have been more attentive than ever in ensuring security and safety at our joint border. Both countries have formally agreed to co-operate on border security and regional migration issues and have signed a smart border declaration which includes a 30 point action plan to ensure a safe, secure and efficient border.

The goal is to facilitate the movement of legitimate goods and people while preventing terrorists and undesirable individuals from entering Canada or the United States.

The Government of Canada has long realized that the fight against organized crime is not a task it can take on alone. Since the adoption of the joint statement on organized crime in 1998, we have been working very closely with our provincial and territorial counterparts to address this problem.

The national agenda to combat organized crime identifies a series of new legislative initiatives to enhance the investigation and prosecution of organized crime. Bill C-24 was a good first step and an important first step.

The police community told policymakers there was a need to improve legislation and that is exactly what happened and what we did. Bill C-24 will assist in addressing serious problems like biker gangs and other forms of serious crime.

We all know that criminals are making full use of technological advances to facilitate and provide leverage for their crimes. In order to respond effectively, we need to capitalize on the new technological tools available to us.

An excellent example of this is the Canada Public Safety Information Network which is designed to link criminal justice agencies across Canada to allow for better detection and prosecution of offenders. In October 2001, the Solicitor General of Canada announced that $4.9 million in new money would be dedicated in part to enhancing this program.

Furthermore, encryption technology is becoming cheaper, stronger, widely available and easy to use. Criminals and terrorists increasingly use some form of encryption or password protection to secure their communications. That is why the Department of the Solicitor General has implemented an action plan to provide technical solutions and to conduct a comprehensive legislative review.

Here, as with organized crime, the challenge is for our laws to keep pace with the changing face of technology and crime.

The Government of Canada does not take public safety and national security for granted. As I have just outlined, we have introduced numerous initiatives designed to enhance both national security and public safety.

Parliament and parliamentary committees continue to play a vigorous role in this area. We have only to point to parliament's work on Bill C-36, Bill C-24, Bill C-11 and continuing debate regarding Bill C-42 and Bill S-23.

I look forward to the continued input of all parliamentarians as we work together in this very important area. I will conclude by saying that public security and public safety remain a top priority. As a government, along with all Canadians, we need to work in this very important area to ensure that at the end of the day we secure a safe and good place for Canadians wherever they live in this country.

Property Rights

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, certainly I listened with some interest to the member who presented the motion, the hon. member for Yorkton--Melville. I think it is worth reading to the House the intent of the proposed legislation:

That the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights fully examine the effectiveness of property rights protection for Canadian citizens as provided in the Canadian Bill of Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and report back to the House whether or not the federal laws protecting property rights need to be amended in order to comply with international agreements Canada has entered into, including Article 17 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights that states: “1. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. 2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property”.

As well, I listened to the other members who spoke to the motion, which is non-votable, and particularly to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice. To give credit to the member for Yorkton--Melville, he has raised other issues in the House on and about gun control and has admitted that this motion distinctly was brought in to deal with gun control. I noted that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice never once mentioned the words firearms or gun control in his reply. I thought it was quite an interesting discussion. I do not know quite how he managed to avoid it.

Certainly I would agree with the member for Yorkton--Melville that this is worthy of taking to the committee, worthy of looking at, worthy of debate, and worthy of a vote in the House. Whether or not that vote would be passed, whether or not given more information the majority of members in the House would support it is yet to be seen. Certainly a couple of things came to mind as I was listening to the debate.

The first thing that leaped out at me in the discussion of firearms registration was that the member stated he had presented bills to the House before that had been well researched and well drafted and he thought this was another good motion to bring to the House. I am not as certain, after listening to the debate, that this is as well researched and as well drafted as some of the other motions and private members' bills.

Certainly I listened with some concern when I heard reference to the American constitution and the fifth amendment. We can debate, and probably should, and that would be the point of taking this to committee, the provision of the fifth amendment and the American constitution, but the first thing that comes to my mind is the Enron scandal in the United States. The perpetrators of that crime, and it is a crime, are appearing at the inquiry, which is dealing with $100 billion of private investors' money in the United States, and they have all claimed the fifth amendment. It certainly looks as if they will walk, scot-free. It is absolutely scandalous that we would allow such a provision in the charter of rights in Canada, a provision that would allow perpetrators of a crime to claim something similar to the fifth amendment and walk away scot-free.

Also mentioned were the social limits on the ownership and use of property. The member from the Bloc raised a very good point about the fact that many people would claim that child pornography is property and therefore they should be allowed to own it, distribute it and use it as they see fit. I would disagree with that. The Bloc member has made a very good point.

On the issue I take this to be about, the issue of firearms control and some misguided, poorly used and poorly implemented legislation brought in by the Liberal government, certainly I would agree that we need to find an avenue to change it. The only avenue I see before the people of Canada to change that particularly spurious piece of legislation, Bill C-68, at this stage in the process would be to change the government and bring in legislation that effectively gets rid of long gun registration. Until that happens, I do not expect any other changes to be made. We can continue to raise the issue. We can continue to explain to Canadians why it continues to be an important issue, but at the end of the day there is only one thing that will change Bill C-68 unless suddenly there is a great amount of calcium found in the spines of the Liberal backbench members which would actually force the government to bring in some meaningful legislation to deal with firearms registration.

I will just take a few minutes for this because we are talking about property and in this case I am talking about firearms and not about other types of property. With regard to Bill C-68, which was implemented and passed in 1995, I think it never hurts to just spell out one more time the cost of this poorly crafted piece of legislation. The government promised, as we all remember, that it would cost $85 million, and $50 million to $60 million per year to run the registry. That operating budget has soared from a projection of $60 million to $100 million a year. As of November 21, 2001, the cost of the program was confirmed as of that date at $689 million.

I suspect that the legislation may have been brought in with some good intentions. Unfortunately those good intentions have never done what they were supposed to do. The only thing that has occurred from the onset of that legislation is that the government has refused to give out information, has refused to give out statistics and has refused to engage in realistic debate in the House of Commons on the issue, and it has steadfastly refused to amend it. As a matter of fact, the few times it has been amended have probably made it worse.

There are new provisions in the safety act, Bill C-42, which raise real questions about whether or not black powder advocates in Canada, people who either enjoy black powder hunting or belong to re-enactment groups like the King's Orange Rangers, will be able to have access to black powder to use in their muskets. Black powder is an explosive. In Bill C-42, under the section dealing with natural resources and the Explosives Act, there would be some question of whether or not these people would qualify to actually purchase that explosive.

It just goes on and on. We all know about the constitutional challenge to the gun registry. We all know that it was denied at the supreme court. I think we have to go back to the basics. We have to try to understand why the government would bring in such a poorly crafted piece of legislation and why millions of Canadians have still refused to register. The registration date has been changed, first from 1998, then to 2001 and now it is in 2003 that we will have the last opportunity to register on the last minute of the last day. Again the government has come out with a bunch of magical numbers, saying that of 2.2 million firearms owners 90% of them have complied, so that is 1.8 million or something like that. These are ridiculous numbers.

We know there are 7 million to 8 million firearms in the country, mostly long guns, used by people like myself for hunting, or trapping or for varmint control. It is time that we absolutely stopped setting penalties against legitimate firearm owners. We have to do something about it and reverse the legislation.

Sir John A. Macdonald Day and Sir Wilfrid Laurier Day Act

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Madam Speaker, that was a nice canned response. I did very much refer to the issuance of certificates. What the parliamentary secretary has put before us confirms that a very vague and broad definition can be given to the issuance of certificates. National defence and national security are certainly wide parameters.

We are seeing the government backing away from the same type of broad and unchecked powers that will be issued through Bill C-42, but as far as this remaining the rule of law and this being the rule rather than the exception is concerned, I have already referred to a recent case where the government has done the complete opposite. It has actually clawed back the ability of the public to access information about the records of ministers, the expense accounts of ministers and those of their senior bureaucrats.

The Prime Minister's golf diaries and greens fees are also still not available to Canadians. I do not suppose we will ever see them. Thankfully for the Prime Minister, he has individuals like Jean Carle and others in the PMO who have been very effective in covering his tracks.

The Budget

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to engage in this debate. Somewhere in the middle of the debate the exchange of rhetoric on both sides of the House was somewhat surprising to me. I do not know how readers of Hansard or viewers of the proceedings are taking this but from time to time I get lost in the great gulf between the rhetoric of what seems to be on one side of the House and what is on this side.

For the benefit of my own constituents in Scarborough--Rouge River I will try to focus my remarks on something where there are not great gaps in credibility and understanding.

We have gone through a budget presentation. The budget records a number of landmarks around the budget year. The budget year is the year that will follow the budget, not the fiscal year ending in March 2002.

There are two or three landmarks I have taken pleasure in viewing. I would say the same no matter what side of the House I sat on. First, I have taken pleasure in the reduction of our public debt. We can measure public debt, net debt and foreign debt seven ways to Sunday, but to make the matter simpler we have managed over the last couple of years to pay down our net public debt by some $35 billion.

Someone in the House was inquiring what happened to the $17 billion surplus. Most of it went to pay down the debt. We did not pay down $35 billion in debt by losing money somewhere and not finding it. It had to be paid down with real money. It was paid down with real taxpayer money scavenged from the surplus we had accumulated over the last couple of years. Our debt now stands at about $547 billion by the simplest measure.

Second, our debt to GDP ratio has moved down from approximately 71% to 51.8%. Next year, the year beginning next April 1, it is anticipated that our debt to GDP ratio will fall to under 50%. That is particularly pleasing because most of the industrialized world uses the 50% threshold as the benchmark for affordability of national debt no matter how we measure it.

I will not get into a debate about the various components of our public debt, some of which are more manageable and repayable than others. However once we are under 50% GDP we have a very manageable portfolio.

The budget documents contain quite a bit of information about how the government intends to manage and diversify our debt to ensure Canadians pay the lowest interest rates and reduce the debt in an appropriately orderly fashion over the years to come. That will happen.

Third, there was a time a few years ago when it was said that we paid 36 cents of every tax revenue dollar on interest. The budget records the fact that this year, the year ending this coming March, we are only spending 23 cents of every revenue dollar on interest. Some will say it would be better if we did not have to spend 23 cents of every dollar, but that is a heck of a lot better than 36 cents of every dollar. That is where we are now. That is how far we have come. We are continuing to make progress.

The budget follows through with a number of other commitments the government had made previously. A lot of the rhetoric and discussion here today is about things that were not in the budget or should have been in the budget. The tax cuts that have been described as cuts of $100 billion over five years were announced previously. They were not in the budget. They did not need to be in the budget. They are already part of government policy.

The number for the fiscal year we are in is some $43 billion, but the tax cut over five years is continuing. It is in the pipeline. It does not happen in one year. Whether we measure it at 20, 40 or 100, no matter how many billions of dollars or how we slice it up, the tax reductions are in the pipeline for all Canadian taxpayers.

The budget was intended to address a weakening economy as well as the September 11 incidents. It is important to note that two things are happening already which most economists would agree in large measure do as much as possible to address a weakening economy: fiscal stimulus and monetary stimulus.

The fiscal stimulus is the current $17 billion of tax cuts which will find their way back into Canadians' pockets this year. That is already is the pipeline. That money finds its way back into the economy as fiscal stimulus by a reduction in taxes on paycheques for all who pay at source or for those who pay their taxes in other ways.

The monetary stimulus comes from the very recognizable reduction in interest rates across the country. Not that long ago we were all paying 10%, 11% or 12% interest on various things such as consumer debt, mortgages, business loans and the prime rates. Those rates have all come down to 3%, 4% and 5%. That is a huge difference to Canadians. These low interest rates are providing the monetary stimulus. There is not an economist anywhere who will not agree that they are mega, major stimuli for our economy. These things were already in the pipeline when the finance minister delivered his budget.

I cannot address the many other elements of the budget in the few minutes I have, but there is a huge emphasis on security. What happened on September 11 changed our perception of what is happening in the world. The threats manifest in that incident were quantitatively and qualitatively beyond anything we have experienced outside of wartime.

We know there is an enemy out there and the enemy is pretty much unseen. In true gamesmanship theory, when we have an enemy we must find and liquidate the enemy before the enemy gets to us. Without going into details about how we must do this, it is imperative that we do. It is arguable that this enemy is intent on blowing us into the dark ages. No one in the House will permit that to happen.

We must now invest in security and intelligence in a way that will let us find and root out the enemy. Some of that is happening today in Afghanistan as we speak, but there are many other things ongoing and many other threats related to that, not just in Afghanistan but here and in our neighbouring countries.

It is not always possible to go into detail about all the threats. Canadians understand that we cannot do it because there are ongoing attempts to find the enemy. If we tell the enemy we are looking for him the enemy then changes the players on the chess board and we make our success that much harder.

These things are going on now but there are huge risks out there. We do not know when the risks will reduce. There is no reason to believe they are any less today than they were on September 11. They will continue for some time.

In that process, it is possible that all of us as Canadians will be asked to rethink our own civil liberties from time to time and invest a bit in our own collective security. These issues have been discussed elsewhere in relation to Bill C-36 and Bill C-42. Where we will be a few months from now I am not sure.

I come from a riding which has a large representation from each of the five large Islamic groupings: the Sunni, the Shia, the Ahmadiyya, the Ismaili, the Bora and others. These groupings of the Islamic faith are embarrassed and unhappy that the terrorists have in a sense hijacked their faith and pretended that the Islamic faith is the reason for the terror.

This is not the case. We must all be sensitive to that. As we move along we must ensure that all Canadians are treated fully as Canadians and accorded all their civil liberties with great respect.

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, three months ago today the world witnessed terrorist attacks on the United States of a magnitude unlike anything seen before. In the next few minutes I would like to talk about how the Government of Canada has responded to those attacks. I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Davenport as we enter the debate.

The impact of these attacks continues every day. There is no question that things have changed as a result of the 11th. To some degree we have lost our naivety as a society and we have lost our innocence, and that is to be lamented. However every challenge that comes forward in life has to be met with resilience. That is what the government has done since September 11th.

The Government of Canada reacted quickly and effectively on several fronts after the events of September 11 in order to deal with the serious threats stemming from these horrible crimes.

I am pleased to provide details today on the $2.2 billion in air security initiatives that were announced in yesterday's federal budget. This is part of our response to the events of September 11.

Everyone knows what the government did on the 11th in the closing of our skies and in working with our American friends to ensure that all planes coming across the Atlantic and the Pacific were put to Canadian destinations. The people on those planes were processed and received with great hospitality by the people of Canada.

In the hours afterward, as we grappled with that particular problem, my officials were working with those of the FAA in Washington to come up with new, tougher security measures to ensure we did not have a repeat of the events of the 11th.

We also announced that immediately cockpit doors were to be locked for the full duration of the flights. That was long overdue. As the House will remember, earlier this year I asked pilot organizations across the country to consider closing these doors. In fact, I issued an order that at the first sign of any trouble those cockpit doors were to be closed. We had to follow this with the complete closing of the cockpit. That is something again which will affect lots of travellers who interact with the crew, and young children, in particular, who on their first flights are allowed to see from the cockpit the icebergs off Greenland, or the St. Lawrence river valley or the Rockies as they fly over them. These things meant a lot to the travelling public and to the pilots in terms of interacting with passengers but that is all gone.

We came forward immediately and said that we would bring in nearly $58 million worth of explosives detection equipment. We actually ordered that equipment. We also said we would spend $1 million to do a very quick study to ensure that new methods were put in place to look at technologies and practices for airport security operations.

We immediately allocated $3 million for new inspectors at Transport Canada and the resources necessary to support their activities. In recent days we introduced Bill C-42, the public safety act, which is designed to strengthen the government's ability to improve the safety of Canadians, to prevent terrorist attacks and to respond quickly if significant threats should arise.

Most of that bill comprised of Aeronautics Act amendments that were in the works, that had stakeholder consultation and that were brought forward in advance because there were some changes that absolutely were required to deal with the events of the 11th. One, which was spun off from Bill C-42, was to make the manifest information from Canadian flights available to our friends in the United States, something to which they had full entitlement but something we could not provide under Canadian law.

Canada already has one of the best civil aviation systems in the world and an enviable safety and security record. Following the terrorist attacks, it was necessary to take immediate measures to increase the level of aviation security in Canada, and we reacted accordingly. However, as I have often repeated in recent weeks, we can and we must continue to do better.

Yesterday, my colleague, the Minister of Finance, detailed in great measure some of the responses that we have made on the airline security front.

First and foremost is the Canadian air transport security authority. This authority will be different from the status quo and will be different from the regime that the Americans have put in place. We are combining the benefits of involving the private sector and of having some element of decentralization, but with centralized standards and certification. We are not bringing all these people in as federal employees or as public servants. We are making them federally regulated employees. They can continue to work for security firms and airport authorities, but they will be regulated by the federal government. They will have to meet strict standards of performance.

This is a good compromise from the positions of airlines, airport authorities and others. It is a compromise in terms of organization but it does not compromise the values of safety in which we believe so much.

This organization will be responsible for all pre-boarding screening at airports. It will improve the effectiveness and consistency of screening services across the country. It will be responsible for the acquisition, maintenance and operating of screening equipment. It will certify and test security officers responsible, and certification will be awarded on the basis of new security and training standards set by the authority in accordance with Transport Canada's enhanced regulatory requirements.

The authority will set conditions for its employees under service contracts. These conditions will include appropriate performance standards, minimum wage rates, maximum hours of work and conditions relating to retention, including ongoing training.

We shall continue to establish standards and regulations for the delivery of aviation security services and to monitor for compliance.

A lot had been made of accountability in this Chamber, as there rightly should be. What we have announced will be accountable to those people sitting in the House of Commons and the Senate because this will be an agency that will report directly to me, as minister, and the Minister of Transport stands here as a member of the government, accountable to all members in the House.

Even before the authority is in place, the government will be providing up to $10 million this fiscal year to implement immediate improvements to airport screening practices.

Even prior to the authority being set up, the government will provide up to $10 million during the current financial year to make immediate improvements to security measures in airports.

Also to help the authority meet its objectives, the government is going to provide up to $128 million a year extra in pre-board screening services. That funding represents an increase of 78% over the airlines' expenditures last year for pre-board screening.

In addition we shall be spending $1 billion for explosive detection systems equipment right across the country. That will cover 99% of all airline passengers in the country. That is going to be incredible coverage and will give Canadians a real sense of security.

This morning I held a news conference at the Ottawa International Airport. My officials demonstrated the new equipment. New X-ray equipment will be brought forward. The incredible technological breakthroughs that have been made in screening equipment will now be available here in Canada.

Also we are going to be providing $35 million over the next two years to airlines to help cover the cost of security modifications to existing passenger aircraft resulting from new standards and regulations currently in development.

The government will make annual contributions for costs associated with aviation security related policing at major airports. The new authority will provide funding for aviation security related policing to airport authorities which will make appropriate arrangements with police forces. We will be making one time payments of $20 million this year for heightened policing and security at airports resulting from the terrorist attacks.

A lot has been said about armed police force on aircraft. This is something we would rather not have done. In a civilized society we do not want to be in a plane at 37,000 feet with any firearm available even if it is in the hands of the RCMP. That is fraught with danger. It is something the airline industry grappled with. In particular, the Air Canada pilots grappled with that. They changed their views over the course of the last few weeks. We were sensitive to the changing views of the aviation industry.

It was with reluctance that I recommended to my colleagues that we put armed personnel on planes because it will be a confidence building measure for airline travellers. Some weeks ago we already agreed to this particular measure for flights into Washington.

I could go on at length but I want to assure all my colleagues that we had a very good airline security system before September 11, but it was not good enough. What was announced yesterday by the Minister of Finance and by the government will improve it. We will have the best airline, airport and aircraft security system in the world.

Criminal Code

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues from other parties, I will be keeping my remarks on these amendments quite brief. I rise on behalf of the coalition to add some thoughts on this issue.

As others have said, there is more than just a touch of irony that the unelected other place was successful in getting these two substantive amendments to Bill C-24, despite the best efforts of opposition members, especially at the justice committee, to get similar amendments through in the House of Commons. Unfortunately that speaks volumes to the attitude of the government in its approach to legislation, specifically its approach to the consideration of amendments to its legislation.

Unfortunately something very similar transpired with Bill C-36 more recently, despite assurances from the government, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice that adequate consideration, and a common sense approach, would be given to representations from individuals, groups, opposition MPs and its own backbenchers. Once again we saw a flawed process brought to a very speedy close with the use of time allocation.

I would like to congratulate the Senate for bringing forward these two amendments to Bill C-24, the organized crime legislation. I refer specifically to the one increasing independent review or civilian oversight. That is especially appropriate, but not only for this legislation.

Similar concerns were put forward not only by opposition members of parliament, but by groups concerned about the rights and privileges of individual Canadians and the risk of abuse by police forces in how they would implement the new powers contained in Bill C-36. Very serious efforts were put forward by a number of organizations, including the PC/DR, to have an independent oversight agency or individual hold the police and law enforcement agencies that would have the new powers, such as CSIS, accountable rather than individuals going to court to hold the government and law enforcement agencies accountable, if they felt their powers were being abused.

That is an important amendment to Bill C-24 made by the other place. Hopefully, something similar will be included in Bill C-36. The same concerns are being expressed about Bill C-42, which we are just now beginning to debate.

The fact that the system had to ultimately rely upon the Senate to bring forward amendments successfully points to a serious flaw, as other members from other parties have said, at the committee level and in the House of Commons. We do not have a system of free votes. I would argue very strenuously that if we had that, much better legislation would be passed in this place. That legislation would then go to the Senate and it might not be required to make amendments that should have made here originally.

Hopefully it is something the government will consider in the future. It is hoped the government will free up its members to vote more independently, especially when dealing with something as common sense as amendments being put forward to legislation at the committee stage. It could ultimately have the effect of parliament being more democratic and also of the House of Commons operating much more efficiently and effectively.

Legislation would come back from committee properly amended. I suspect there would be fewer amendments put forward at report stage on the floor of the Chamber. In many cases that is one of the few tools the opposition members have to draw public attention through the television cameras to what they feel is flawed legislation. They bring their amendments forward at report stage in the Chamber.

Obviously the legislation, as has been said before, is targeted at organized crime, specifically at some of the horrific activities of biker gangs, especially in the province of Quebec. We are all aware of those activities. We do not need to rehash those ongoing issues. We want to ensure that our law enforcement agencies have the necessary resources, powers and the tools to combat organized crime wherever it occurs.

On that one specific issue, concern has been expressed by the coalition and by other parties about the financial resources available to our law enforcement agencies. In the eight year history of my involvement as a member of parliament I have spoken many times about the need to ensure adequate resources for the RCMP.

As the previous speaker for the Canadian Alliance alluded to, the legislation once it goes into effect can easily involve substantial expenditures by our police forces. That obviously would be at the local or city police level, provincial police forces or the RCMP, or presumably even an agency such as CSIS, in combating organized crime. It is much similar to the need for all those same agencies to wage the successful war against terrorism.

We want to ensure that we provide the tools that these agencies and law enforcement organizations require to do the job, to go head to head with organized crime and terrorists. We want to ensure that they have the adequate financial resources as well.

It is little help to them if we only say that we will make the necessary legislative changes to ensure that they have the power to do their jobs effectively and hold those individuals to account, whether those individuals are in organized crime, or undertake terrorist activities, or encourage others to undertake terrorist activities. It is simply not enough to give them the necessary legislative tools without giving them the financial resources.

Obviously all of us in this place and all Canadians will be watching with great interest the presentation of the finance minister's budget on Monday. We will be watching to see what financial resources will go hand in hand with the legislative tools to ensure that our law enforcement agencies have the resources and funds necessary to take on organized crime and terrorists wherever they may be lurking and hiding and conducting their filthy business in our country.

Business of the House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we will continue this afternoon with Bill C-24, the organized crime legislation, which is currently before the House, and at least consider the Senate's amendments to Bill C-24.

This will be followed by Bill C-15B, the criminal code amendments, as I announced yesterday to the House leaders of the other parties.

Then, if there is any time remaining today, we will continue with Bill C-27, the nuclear safety bill.

Tomorrow, we hope to pass Bill C-46, the ignition interlock device bill sponsored by the Minister of Justice, at all stages. I thank the leaders of all parties for having consented to move this through all stages before the holidays.

We will then call report stage and second reading of Bill C-23, the competition legislation. If there is any time left tomorrow, we will turn to report stage and third reading of Bill C-43, the technical amendments bill.

On Monday, we will return to the bills I have listed, and those that have not been completed, that is unfinished business from today and tomorrow.

I would remind hon. members that the budget will be presented at 4 p.m. on Monday, of course, and the budget debate, that is the debate on the amendment to the amendment—in the improbable event of some hon. members wishing to propose an amendment to the amendment—would take place on Tuesday and Wednesday, with division at the end of the day, on Wednesday.

The business scheduled for Thursday and Friday of next week, if the House is sitting, would be Bill C-42.

Aeronautics Act

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I will utilize all my time, but listening to the debate today I thought it would be a good opportunity to participate in the larger issue of the way the government is conducting the business of the House in its so-called fight against terrorism.

As I said to my colleague from the Bloc during questions and comments, I found myself agreeing with his overarching statement that one of the problems we in the House, let alone Canadians out in the real world, have with the government's approach to the war on terrorism is the way it is bringing in legislation.

We all recognize that while the legislation is hurried it must be done properly. There is not only a great need for the government to bring forward thoughtful legislation that will stand the test of time. It must allow the legislation to be open to amendments from all parties in the House. It must listen attentively to representations by people and organizations out in the real world who would ultimately be affected by the legislation we pass in this place.

Unfortunately what we have seen in the last two months or so, as my colleague was saying, is Bill C-36, the so-called anti-terrorism legislation; Bill C-35; and Bill C-42. Bill C-44 which we are debating today was hived off Bill C-42 because of the sense of urgency that the clause needed to be passed before the House rose for mid-winter break.

It is this approach that is causing consternation and concern among all opposition parties and to a certain degree the Canadian public. The government has not communicated an overall vision of what it intends to do to address the issue. It is encouraging the Canadian public to get back to business as usual.

We want to minimize the economic impact of the war on terrorism and the aftermath of the horrendous attacks. We all understand that. However the world has changed forever. People outside the Ottawa bubble recognize that at least as much as we do and possibly more. The world is not the same place. Canadians are looking to the government for leadership.

The government is bringing bills before the House one at a time. We in the opposition are expected to assist the government in making sure the best possible legislation is ultimately put into law, or at least sent to the other place for the Senate to consider. While we struggle with this it is extremely difficult if we do not understand the government's overall vision and exactly what it intends to bring forward.

As a number of individuals said prior to my remarks, we might react quite differently to legislation if we could see it within the overall context of what is coming down the road. We might be more supportive or more opposed.

We have no idea what bills the government may introduce between now and when the House rises next week. We do not know what it will bring forward in late January or early February to address different facets of the huge issue of terrorism and try to make our country, society and people safer and more secure.

As the previous speakers have said, we are supportive of the fact that the legislation before us today, Bill C-44, is very simple in nature. We are concerned about the lack of vision and foresight that the government continually exhibits and what that elicits in the minds of the public. It is not very comforting for the people of a country, who are looking for leadership, to see this piecemeal approach wherein legislation is very hurriedly brought in and then amended by the government amends.

In the case of Bill C-36, there were somewhere in the order of 100 amendments, the vast majority of which were brought forward by the government. Those types of procedures send a very clear message to Canadians that the government is not in control and that it does not have a clear plan. If it did, it would not have brought the bill forward and before it was barely in the House start looking at possible amendments, tearing it apart and rejigging it.

With Bill C-42, the government brought the bill forward, then rushed around and talked to all the opposition parties to see if there was some way the bill could be shuttled off to committee right away so the committee could hive off the clause that was needed right away. The government had some concerns about that because it wanted to adequately debate Bill C-42 on the floor of the House.

When the government ran into resistance with that, it then thought it could perhaps get unanimous consent to carve off one piece of the bill, submit it as new legislation in the form of Bill C-44 and then rush it through the House. That type of activity by the government is far from comforting or reassuring to Canadians, let alone to Americans.

I can well remember rising in my place to speak shortly after the House reconvened in late September. I believe it was the September 18, if memory serves me correctly. In my remarks at that time I suggested that it was incumbent upon the government to communicate to the Canadian people and Americans a vision of what it intended to do to make our country, and indeed our continent, more secure. Sadly, over two months have passed since the House reconvened and we have not seen that type of vision or comprehensive plan put forward by the government. We have not seen it communicate its plan is to Canadians and Americans or North Americans as a whole.

Instead, as my colleague from the Bloc just said, the government has brought forward one piece of legislation at a time thinking it could perhaps plug the problem with airline security, or airport security, or passenger lists or some potential problem at a seaport. I believe it is this piecemeal approach that is of great concern to the Canadian people. It does not send the proper message to Canadians or Americans that the government knows what it is doing on this all important issue.

My colleague from South Surrey--White Rock--Langley who spoke earlier on this legislation has done an incredible amount of work, not just in the last couple of months but in the last few years on the issue of border management. The issue of trade corridors is obviously of huge importance to her because her riding is very close to the U.S. border.

Cross-border trade is a big issue, not only to all Canadians but to the Americans as well. Eighty per cent of our trade is with the Americans and one-quarter of theirs is with us. However it also is a huge issue for her and to people of her riding. She has done an incredible amount of work on this very complex issue of border management, even prior to the horrendous terrorist attacks of September 11 and the fallout those attacks.

Unfortunately what we are witnessing now is a tightening of security at the U.S. border. The coalition has argued that that tightening of our entry points should be on a continental perimeter rather than restricted only to the American-Canadian border. I know this is of grave concern to local politicians. The mayors and councils of the cities closest to the U.S.-Canada border have become quite involved because they have recognized the fallout. Whether it is Quebec and the New England states, or the Windsor border area of Ontario or at different points across western Canada, this problem has affected the vast majority of Canadians, and we want to see it solved.

That is why my colleague, on behalf of the coalition, put forward more of a comprehensive plan, or a vision, on greater border management and security. One of the facets of the plan is a binational or bilateral agency to exchange freely information between the United States and Canada by setting up a databank computer system. By doing that our systems would be fully integrated and both countries would know exactly what was going back and forth across the border. We would then have the reassurance that both countries would know what is going on.

I am reminded of the example I used when I spoke to the issue back home in my riding of Prince George--Peace River during the November break week. I was talking to some Rotary clubs and chambers of commerce in the riding. I made the comment about the banks designing a bank card which could be used almost everywhere in the world. People could go to an international bank, put in a bank card and get money out in local currency. That truly is amazing when one thinks about it. If the banks could design something like that, then surely to goodness two countries with so much at stake, as Canada and the United States have on the issues of security and safety for our citizens, could design an integrated computer system and establish an agency to monitor that system. By doing that, both countries could feel comfortable in knowing who and what goods were travelling back and forth across our common border.

I commend my colleague for the work she has done on this issue and I commend our proposal put forward by the coalition on November 1. I know that she has had discussions with some Americans and American agencies on this issue and that the vision of a new way of managing the border between the U.S. and Canada has been relatively well received. It could bear some great fruit on how we approach this.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the experience of other countries needs to be looked at. If it is important for the U.S. to have this information before allowing planes to land there, if it is important for them to have names, addresses, phone numbers, SIN numbers and goodness knows what else, perhaps thought would have to be given to requiring the same of them.

The hon. member will understand that I have not, personally, examined that approach. The member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel is our critic and expert in this field. This would certainly be a highly pertinent question, particularly for an overall view. This is a bill that is even more complex, because it is Bill C-42 in its entirety. This is a question my colleague is going to be able to answer readily.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to be a little bit clearer. The Bloc Quebecois and, I believe, Quebecers and Canadians as a whole, would have liked to hear the government say: “This is what we intend to do to fight terrorism. A bill will deal with an issue, and another one with another issue. Bill C-42 will be about this and that”. We would have liked the government to explain the approach on which is based the anti-terrorism legislation we are going to pass.

This does not mean that everything should be put in a single bill. I agree with the member who said that an omnibus bill always contains elements that are frightening or that we would like to oppose, and others elements that are interesting and we would like to support.

Right now, we are in between: we do not know what to do and we feel the government tried to slip us a pill we did not want along with something we did. I have always been against such an approach. I have always said that the government should not proceed in such a way and I still hold that view.

We would have liked the government to show the political courage it seems to lack and spell out everything it wanted in terms of the legislation to fight terrorism.

I can immediately say that if we had been shown Bills C-35, C-36, C-42 and C-44, and if I had examined them with my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, we would not have supported Bill C-36 at second reading, because it went too far, because it was not consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and because it lacks the proper balance between national security and individual and group rights.

The government decided to introduce Bill C-36 first, and then Bill C-35. Still later, it came up with Bill C-42, which was supposed to be extremely important and which had to be passed in a hurry before the holiday season. Suddenly, we found out that the only very important part in this 100 page bill could hold on a single 8½ X 11 sheet of paper.

What are we to believe in everything this government is saying? This is called a piecemeal approach.

I congratulate the government on this initiative to have the minister remove a clause from the bill and introduce new legislation, Bill C-44. I agree with the splitting of this part, which will allow us to support it, although not wholeheartedly as I was saying earlier on Bill C-44, but in general. My colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel made a very eloquent speech in this regard.

We will indeed support this bill, even if we might add that the government has gone too far and that it is not abiding by the promises it made regarding the regulations. We will support it because life has to go on, particularly since many people deal with the United States in Quebec and in Canada. A lot of people travel, et cetera. On January 18 or 19, there would be a problem if we did not have legislation. Therefore we are going ahead with this.

But the government might be going too far. For the rest of Bill C-42, when the debate will be held, when all of that will be examined in committee, we will realize once more that it is really going too far and that we have to analyze all the pieces of the puzzle to understand the government's approach to the fight against terrorism.

I sincerely hope that there will be opposition members, who have done an excellent job on these rights, as well as some government members, such as the hon. member for Mount Royal, who told reporters before the bill was passed that it made no sense and he would be voting against it, but yet when the time came to vote, he stood up and voted the same as the rest of the government.

I trust they will be logical in their thinking, and will not yield to the government's pressure, the pressure it puts on every time it introduces bills of this kind.

I think I have been sufficiently clear this time on how I see things, and I believe I am not alone in my views. I think this is what the public wants, and it deserves to have the government act according to its wishes.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since this morning, I have been listening carefully to the debate about this very important bill. When I heard what the Bloc Quebecois member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel had to say, I decided to speak to the bill myself, given its importance.

The House will understand that this is an issue which the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel has followed closely and on which he has done a considerable amount of work. He advises and informs the Bloc Quebecois members on this topic. I listened to him earlier and several things that he said about Bill C-44 caught my attention. I am thinking of such things as all the legislative measures that the government has put in place to fight terrorism, and the atmosphere that has been created as a result.

I simply had to speak because this is an issue that is terribly important to me, since it touches on key concepts, on the criminal code and related legislation. It is important for the legal system of Canada and of Quebec. I therefore decided to rise and speak.

As my colleague said, this is a very important bill, which will influence our justice system for years to come. To give a bit of context, it must be recalled that the government began by introducing Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism bill. This bill gave various powers to ministers, including the solicitor general and the Minister of National Defence, with respect to arrests without warrant, very broad electronic eavesdropping, and so forth. It is a very complex piece of legislation, whose principle we agreed with, and we thought we should support it. That is what we did.

But we had such major reservations that, in the end, we voted against the bill at third reading. At the time, we thought that this was the government's anti-terrorism measure. Surprise, surprise. We see that Bill C-35 contains all sorts of clauses giving increased powers to the RCMP, special powers to peace officers during visits by foreign heads of state. So there is another anti-terrorism measure.

Then came another such measure—this is basically how Bill C-44 came about—it was Bill C-42. Bill C-42 is highly complex. As we said earlier, it is about a hundred pages long. Once again, more powers are given to ministers, the solicitor general and the Minister of Defence. Interim orders may be taken and military zones may be created. This is another legislative measure to combat terrorism.

That is when we said “This is too much, this is going too far”. We cannot even support Bill C-42 in principle, because it disregards the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and gives far too broad powers to one single man or woman. We need to examine this more closely. We need to take time to study the whole issue.

Once again, the government is rushing us. The government is gagging us. It introduced motions to study all of these bills quickly under the pretext that we had to meet international requirements.

According to the government, Bill C-42 responds to important international requirements. Is this not strange? When the government realized that it was not able to rush the bill through before the holidays, is it not strange that it managed to limit to one page what had to be passed by then? It is as though all of the rest of Bill C-42 confirmed what we on this side of the House have been saying all along: the events of September 11 were a pretext for this government to turn upside down a number of statutory approaches.

The events of September 11 have provided the government with the opportunity to grab the powers it has always dreamed of, but lacked the political guts to.

This is so much the case that they have taken what was important on the international scene and put it into a bill to be called Bill C-44, the provisions of which fit on an 8½ x 11 sheet of paper.

These important provisions concern air travel, and I will be returning to that later.

What is of concern to me is the improvisational approach the government, which claims to be a responsible government, is taking at present. It is improvising legislation of great importance, seemingly not knowing where it is headed.

This is so much the case that, at one point, the government imposed a gag order for Bill C-36, and the next day we were forced to adjourn at 4 p.m., or maybe it was 5 or 5.30 p.m., I do not remember, because there was nothing left on the order paper. There was nothing more to look at. That shows lack of vision, not knowing where they are headed.

This improvisation goes back to the very start. For weeks on end, the response from the other side when opposition members, particularly the official opposition, were asking the government whether there ought not to be anti-terrorism legislation in Canada, was that it was not needed, that we already had all the legislation required.

Then overnight, two weeks later, a complex bill was introduced; a week later, another; a week later, yet another. Today, the government came up with a bill that we absolutely must pass before Christmas, one that is going to be divided in two. When it comes down to it, it all boils down to one clause.

I feel the government does not know where it is going. This is dangerous when something as important as rights and freedoms are concerned.

The objective we have always tried to attain, with bills C-36, C-35, C-42 and now C-44, is to strike a balance between national security and individual and group rights. This is hardly complicated.

We have an international reputation, and deservedly so, of being a country where rights are preserved. At least, that reputation used to be deserved. We have case law, lawyers to apply it, judges who bring down good decisions. There are some very important elements on which to focus, to invest. It is a good thing for the country, in a way,to live in a place where that balance can be sought.

In all these bills, including Bill C-44 currently before us, we have always been able to draw on the expertise of lawyers, people who for years have worked with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and with individual and group rights. There are even experts among the Liberal government members, including the member for Mount Royal, who claims to be—and I think it is true—a great defender of individual and group rights.

They all, including the member for Mount Royal, criticized bills C-36, C-42, and C-44 now before us.

I read in the papers that the member for Mount Royal criticized Bill C-42, which is in a way the starting point for Bill C-44. He said it was problematic because it upset the balance between the executive, legislative and judiciary branches. The executive is being given more powers. He says he will oppose it.

I should be rejoicing, but I will not be. Why? Because the member for Mount Royal said the same thing about Bill C-36.

Once the steam roller passed on the other side, he did what the majority of Liberals did, he voted in favour of Bill C-36. But those who appeared before the committee, the civil liberties union of Canada, the great and true defenders of individual and group rights continues to condemn this bill, which will come into effect one day, because it has been passed by the House.

I have no illusions about Bill C-42 and Bill C-44. However, I must say that the government opposite has a knack. It has a way of getting many people to swallow affronts. It has a magic potion that makes people accept things they would otherwise reject. It worked with us at first and second reading of Bill C-36. But it did not work afterward, because we saw them coming from miles away.

However, this way of doing things may work with the public as long as it does not see the real impact of the legislation. This is the case with Bill C-44.

The government tells us “We moved an amendment in committee, with the result that the privacy commissioner agrees with the whole thing. Things are fine. There is no problem”. Still, when I look at Bill C-44 and at the amendment, I am very concerned.

What is Bill C-44? It is an act which, once in force, will allow the government to provide information on air travellers. This information will not only include names, addresses and passport numbers: it will be much more detailed. The government says that, thanks to this amendment, the privacy commissioner agrees with the legislation and there is no problem, since everything will be secure. I will read the amendment.

No information provided under subsection (1) to a competent authority in a foreign state may be collected from that foreign state by a government institution, within the meaning of section 3 of the Privacy Act, unless it is collected for the purpose of protecting national security—

I have no problem with that.

—or public safety.

This is where I have a problem. Public safety is a very broad concept. What is public safety? For example, could a department such as Human Resources Development Canada get from the United States information relating to a monetary issue, for reasons of public safety?

It will be up to the courts to interpret this provision. But in the meantime, how will this provision be applied? Will there be abuse? We must never forget that, to fully understand the meaning of this bill, it must be examined along with all the other acts that will come into effect at the same time. We need all the pieces of the puzzle to fully understand the scope of the government's anti-terrorism legislation.

This is worrisome. I cannot see how this amendment can reassure the privacy commissioner, particularly since the governor in council will define through regulations the information that travellers will have to disclose to the government. The government had promised us that we would have the regulations.

As the member for Argenteuil--Papineau--Mirabel has said on numerous occasions, we asked for copies of these regulations. We asked for the information. The government always stalled.

At some point, we felt that we could not wait any longer, that we wanted something in our hands. It sent us a summary of what might be in the regulations. As everyone knows, a summary is always the minimum. When we see the actual regulations, it is clear that the government added little things that it never told us about. It is clear even from the summary that a lot of information is required, even a passenger's social insurance number, telephone number, itinerary, everywhere he has travelled. This is far-reaching.

Using public safety as an excuse, a minister can ask the United States for this information. In other words, it will be possible for someone to invoke public safety and do indirectly something that is outright illegal in Canada. This is using the events of September 11 for highly political ends.

The more we look at the legislative measures, such as Bill C-36, Bill C-35, Bill C-44 and Bill C-42, the closer we get to a police state. That is what is disturbing. I am not saying that this will happen tomorrow morning, but all the ingredients are there to set the stage for a rather ugly situation, a way of doing things which is foreign to Canada and to Quebec. I do not want to live in such a country.

Everyone knows our party's platform. This shows once again that it is high time that Quebecers cast off this central authority, which shows unbelievable arrogance in passing legislation as important as this.

The principle of the bill is understandable, as is the fact that we must have legislation to comply with certain international obligations and with American legislation. The Americans have the right to pass the laws they wish when it comes to their country's security. If they want to allow our carriers to land in their country, I understand that we do not have a big say.

This is why we will support Bill C-44. However, this is another example of the way the government really thinks. It uses an obligation to give itself even greater powers and to do indirectly what it cannot do directly. This flagrant lack of political courage needs to be stressed. But we should stress even more the ad hoc attitude this government has shown throughout the whole process by introducing piecemeal legislation to deal with terrorism.

The opposition would probably have had cooperated fully with the government if it had proceeded through a single bill. However, to do so you must know what you want to do. This may be where the problem lies: the government does not know where it is going, which explains why it deals with such an important issue in a piecemeal way. This is very concerning, because this approach will taint the legislation as a whole and the Canadian way of doing things.

I conclude by saying that we will support Bill C-44 reluctantly, considering that its object is to meet certain obligations. But the government should get its act together and deal with such an important issue much more seriously.

[Val Meredith, Canadian Alliance, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I, unlike some of my colleagues, will refrain from wandering from the bill at hand, which is Bill C-44.

As has been mentioned, members are curious as to why the bill, which was introduced last week, is now before the House at third reading. The reason for rushing the bill through the House, as was mentioned, is to comply with American legislation, the aviation and transportation security act.

Unlike some of my colleagues, I do not accuse the American government of overreacting or forcing Canadians to deal with it. I understand why the Americans put through very detailed legislation on how they would protect themselves. It is very understandable and I will probably refer to it later in my comments.

The bill responds to the American legislation. The American legislation requires that any air carrier flying to the United States must transmit its passenger manifest to the United States customs service in advance of the aircraft landing.The reason that the Americans are asking for this is obvious. It should not take much imagination, remembering the visuals of the aircraft flying into the two towers in New York City, for anybody to understand why the Americans felt it necessary to ask for this co-operation.

I assume that Canadians will also understand why Canada has responded in kind. Yes, the government tried to bring this particular response to the American legislation in through Bill C-42. We can get into a long debate, as others have done, on what is wrong with Bill C-42. However, I think the Canadian government was right in removing this. The Americans, unlike their Canadian counterparts, do not hesitate to be firm in legislation and to put timeframes on it. I think the U.S. government was responsible in putting a timeframe on when it expected this response from foreign carriers to submit passenger manifests.

It gives our Canadian carriers, which are the ones that have asked for the government to allow this, the legal right to provide the manifest. That is what the legislation would do. It would not mandate how it is to be done or what is to be done. It would give the Canadian carriers the legal right to release this information and not be in violation of our privacy legislation.

This is enabling legislation from our Canadian government to allow the airlines to comply with the American government regulations and legislation.

For Canadians travelling to the United States, it should not be a surprise that this is happening. They should not be upset with the information that the Americans are requesting. I would suggest that 94% of all Canadians flying to U.S. destinations already give this information through preclearance at customs in the seven major Canadian airports. When they give this information to U.S. customs prior to boarding the aircraft, they are giving the same information that is being asked for in schedule 1 that the regulations will provide for.

The U.S. customs already will have that information and they will have it in a more timely fashion than the airline transmitting the passenger manifest to them. That is already happening. It will not have much effect on Canadian travellers.

What has happened, as is happening here, is that it is the perception of a government providing greater security which seems to be important. Americans and Canadians need to feel that their governments are reacting in a manner that will provide greater protection and greater security for them. Although this was already happening in Canada, with 94% of our passengers already providing this information, it is important to remind passengers that the governments are looking out for their interests.

I think the American legislation asks for all foreign air carriers. Canada has already been meeting these requirements because of our close relationship with the United States. We have a different relationship with our friends south of the border than other countries do. This legislation really applies to all other foreign carriers. As I mentioned, it will not make much difference for Canadians.

Two types of information are included in the legislation that is responding to the American legislation. The first is a group of basic information that most countries seek from individuals who come to their country: full name, date of birth, gender; citizenship and passport number of the individual. Canada requires that of anyone entering our country. The air carriers will now be able to manifest that information, as required, of all passengers and crew members for each flight that travels to the United States.

The second type of information that concerns some individuals a little more, which my colleagues from the NDP and the Bloc raised, is the information that gives more detail about the actual flight that a passenger is taking. It is called the passenger name record. This is a file on the information that is gathered by the airline on the individual passenger: how the flight was booked, the name of the travel agency used, whether the ticket was paid for in cash or by credit card, the type of payment, all that kind of information, even those things that we voluntarily give an airline, such as our meal preference, our seat preference and those sorts of thing. There is some concern that more information is being given than is necessary and certainly a more personal type of information.

What has to be understood and understood very clearly is that this information about an individual passenger will only be given by the airlines when it is specifically requested by the competent authorities in the foreign country, and at this time it is only the United States. This information will not be for the whole crew or the whole list of passengers but about individual passengers. One might wonder why or how that comes about. It may come about if someone is concerned or has reason to be concerned about an individual passenger who has appeared on a list. The information would then be requested to clear up some uncertainties or to provide more information.

One thing we did hear when the committee studied airline security was that one of the greatest problems we have, not only in our country but in the United States as well, is the sharing of information and intelligence, and that had this sharing of information and intelligence occurred we may not have had the incidents of September 11. The most important factor is that intelligence is shared not only from agency to agency but between the countries that might be involved. This is a sharing of information and intelligence that may prevent a reoccurrence of the tragic events of September 11.

People have pointed out the privacy concern. Some individuals, especially the privacy commissioner, find that the American legislation would be, in his words, repugnant. His concern is that the information being provided to the American authorities will not be protected under the American privacy legislation. I am not sure the information of foreigners or aliens in Canada is protected by the Canadian privacy legislation.

Yes, there may be a concern there, but one has to understand that if a Canadian is flying into the United States that government has the right, just as Canada has the right, to ask whatever questions it may want to ask to confirm that an individual has the legal right to come into the country and that the individual does not pose any threat to national security. Canada has that right and so does the United States. If a person is not willing to comply with the request, then the choice is not to travel to the United States.

I repeat, the Americans will only ask for more detailed information if the name, the alias or the passport number has been red-flagged. It is not that they will be asking for detailed information on every individual who flies to the United States. Millions and millions of people fly into the United States every year. The Americans do not have the resources, time or interest to check every single person to that extent, but what they will want is to have access to the information when they have concerns about an individual. It is their right, as it is Canada's right, to do so, which will be addressed in Bill C-42.

We also have to look at the amendment that the privacy commissioner requested be put in, that any information collected by the U.S. authorities through this process cannot be then given to the Canadian government through the back door. We really have to wonder if Canadians will sleep any better tonight knowing that the Canadian government cannot get this information from the American government unless it pertains to national security, public safety or defence.

If the Canadian government wanted to get the name, address, telephone number and passport number of a Canadian citizen, I think it would be far easier to pick up the phone and call the passport division of foreign affairs then to try and get hold of someone in the American administration to get the information. Let us be real here. If the Canadian government wants my name and passport number, it knows where to find them.

As far as Canadian authorities getting more personal information about any of us, about any person they might be concerned about, they already have that authority. If they are conducting a legal investigation, the investigative body has the legal authority to get whatever information it wants about us. It does not need to go through any back door to get that information.

The amendment would only ensure that Canadian agencies, which could not get the information before under Canadian law, would still not be able to get the information. The Canadian agencies that had the right under Canadian law to get that information would still be able to get that information. In other words, the amendment really does not do anything. It may sound good but it really would not make a difference. The legislation itself will not really make a whole lot of difference to a Canadian who is travelling to the United States.

As I said earlier, 94% of Canadians travelling to the United States now give this information when they are pre-cleared at the seven major airports flying into the United States.

What we need to be concerned about is that the government has not shown any real initiatives. Yes, it can be accused of reacting to the perceived demands of the Americans. It can be accused of seemingly only reacting when pressures are put on it by outside sources.

Over the past eight years the government has shown very little initiative or creative thinking on how we can better our country and better the security for our country.

If the Americans and Canadians truly want an improved system of communication to prevent terrorist activity, they should review the binational border management agency which the coalition proposed on November 1.

Until the Liberal government develops some real foresight, some innovation and an ability to think a little further than the next election, we are going to have to deal with piecemeal legislation that is reactive and not proactive.

For ordinary Canadians, the bill would have very little impact. It is not going to make a whole lot of difference in their lives when they travel to the United States. While the coalition might criticize and wonder about the effectiveness of the legislation, we do not see anything in the legislation that is negative or that would have an adverse effect on Canadians, so we will be supporting it.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-44, an act to amend the Aeronautics Act. As has been mentioned earlier by my colleagues from other parties, the bill was the result of significant co-operation by opposition parties in the House.

It would enable the government to remove a section of Bill C-42 and bring it forth as an urgent piece of legislation to address the concerns of the United States regarding access to information with respect to passenger lists on flights within Canada.

As I indicated, there was great co-operation on behalf of the opposition parties in allowing this to take place. We all recognize in the House that there is urgency in a number of areas to address the problems that have come forth as a result of the terrorist attacks of September 11. There has been great co-operation in trying to address those concerns.

Bill C-44 would give airlines the right to release information to the government of the United States in regard to passenger lists. I will read a descriptive note we got in committee regarding section 4.83 which would be included in the Aeronautics Act:

It relieves air carriers from certain requirements of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and allows them to provide passenger information to foreign authorities, where foreign law requires such information.

Subsection 4.83(2) authorizes the making of regulations generally for the purposes of carrying out section 4.83, including regulations respecting the type of information that may be provided to the foreign authority, as well as the foreign authorities to which the information may be provided.

At committee we are given a rationale. For Canadians and others listening to this, here is the rationale:

This section is necessary to allow air carriers to pass on passenger information to foreign authorities, but only in circumstances where foreign law requires such information as a pre-condition to landing in that country.

At first blush this does not seem to be a big issue. Canadians have recognized as have people throughout the world that times have changed. We are willing to accept that there may be some infringements on our privacy rights and civil liberties. Canadians recognize this and we in the House have recognized it. We have been open to it.

The concern is that the government is not as forthright about the type of information it would include. My colleague from the Bloc stressed this point and it is important to stress it. The legislation does not specify what the information would be.

As we met in committee and wanted to know what type of information would be requested we were given only the intent of the regulations. We were told the intent of the information the government would include. The reason we could only get the intent of the regulations was that the government does not know what will be requested. That is a scary point.

The Government of Canada is putting in place legislation but will not include in it the specific information that is required because it does not yet know. It has said that. The Americans have not told the government exactly what they need.

As a citizen of Canada, a sovereign nation, I have a real problem with agreeing to put in whatever information on the basis of the request of another country.

I recognize the need to address the problem of terrorism and to identify terrorists. However I have a real problem with a government that would leave a blanket opening in a bill to put in whatever regulations it likes and decide whatever information can be released without allowing it to be debated in the House of Commons so that members who represent all Canadians can have a say.

There was concern at committee. Concerns were raised and not only by opposition members. There was concern from a few Liberal members on the committee. There was concern about the type of information the government would then release.

The reason that concern is there is that there is not a lot of faith in the government. There is not a lot of faith on the part of opposition members or Canadians that the government will act respectfully on behalf of Canadian citizens first and not buckle down to what the Americans say. Quite frankly, I am not against Americans and the U.S. The bottom line is that my priority and what we are here for is to represent Canadians first. That is not happening. It is not happening in a number of areas, but specifically the government is not putting the respect and the privacy of Canadians first. As my colleague from the Bloc has mentioned as well, the U.S. legislation specifies exactly what information will be required. This does not happen here.

At committee we did attempt to at least have this intensive schedule of the type of information that would be requested. We tried to have it put within the legislation but were unable to have it passed at committee.

My party thinks the way the government is intending to deal with this, although we do not really know for sure yet, is to have schedules. Schedule I would be the type of information that the foreign states will receive on absolutely all passengers. They would receive some information on everyone. Should they then request information on specific passengers there would be schedule II, which would be the type of information that will be asked for on those passengers. The bottom line is that they could request the schedule II information on every single passenger. There is nothing to restrict that from happening. Schedule III, in section 1, lists the countries that the government has agreed to give this information to. Again, it is only in schedule, in regulation, and is not part of the legislation, so the government at its whim can change it. The government can add on one, two, three or fifty countries and release the information within their schedules, and we do not know what they will be yet. The government could release that information to those countries.

I have a concern about this. I will give members an idea of what the schedule I information is. Quite frankly, the privacy commissioner did not have a big issue with schedule I. The privacy commissioner thought, under specific reasons, schedule II was not a problem either. However even the privacy commissioner felt it would be much better if these schedules were incorporated into the legislation.

There is one thing that we are very clear about after listening to the privacy commissioner. He is in place to respect Canadians and to act on their behalf. It says a lot when we must have a separate commissioner to act on behalf of the privacy of Canadians because we cannot trust the government to do it. This is a crucial point.

Schedule I is the information that would be given to a foreign state on all passengers:

1. The surname, first name and initial or initials, if any, of each passenger or crew member.

2. The date of birth of each passenger or crew member.

3. The citizenship or nationality, or failing either of these, the country that issued travel documents for the flight, of each passenger or crew member.

4. The gender of each passenger or crew member.

5. The passport number or, if the person does not have a passport, the number on the travel document that identifies the person, of each passenger or crew member.

At first blush, it is basic information. I think a lot of us who travel tend to think that information pretty much is available to a lot of people anyway because we book through our travel agent, through other charter companies, through the airlines and we know we are all tied to reservation systems. I think there are a lot of us out there who do not really believe that any information on the computer is private anyway because we know a lot of people seem to be able to access that information. At first blush it is not a big issue.

Where it gets a little touchy is in schedule II. Schedule II mentions things such as:

1. A notation that the passenger's ticket for a flight is a one-way ticket.

2. A notation that a passenger's ticket for the flight is a ticket that is valid for one year and that is issued in travel between specified points with no dates or flight numbers--

It goes on. There are actually 29 notations as to the type of information, but again, this could change. There could be numerous other bits of information that the government at its whim could add to the regulations at any given point.

Schedule II continues:

1. The phone numbers of the passenger and, if applicable, the phone number of the travel agency that made the travel arrangements.

2. The passenger name record number.

3. The address of the passenger and, if applicable, of the travel agency that made the travel arrangements.

4. A notation that the ticket was paid for by a person other than the passenger.

Also there is one that was of considerable concern to a number of members:

1. The manner in which the ticket was paid for.

Again there was a concern. It would be fine here if it just requested to know whether it is by cheque, cash or credit card, but there was a concern that the credit card numbers might be included in the information. One of the concerns the airlines have raised is the amount of the costs that would be incurred if they had to input a whole lot more information or if the information requested had to be disseminated from the information they already have. In other words, areas would have to be blanked out so there would be increased costs to the airlines.

A number of us recognized that at this time there is a need for increased security and without question the safety and security of passengers in the air and on the ground has to be the priority, but we do not want to put the airlines in any greater financial difficulty than they are already. There was concern that the credit card information the airlines have would end up flowing if they just hand over whatever information they have.

As well, there was concern that when the information is handed over to those receiving the information, whatever government departments it might be, they might then pass on information, whether to different bits of industry or possibly back to the country from which it came. I was pleased that the amendment the privacy commissioner suggested to the committee and to the government was agreed to unanimously by the committee. It was put forth at report stage and accepted.

The amendment put forth by the privacy commissioner states:

That Bill C-44, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 19 on page 1 with the following:

Restriction--government institutions

(2) No information provided under subsection (1) to a competent authority in a foreign state may be collected from that foreign state by a government institution, within the meaning of section 3 of the Privacy Act, unless it is collected for the purpose of protecting national security or public safety or for the purpose of defence, and any such information collected by the government institution may be used or disclosed by it only for one or more of those purposes.

It is crucial to note that up until that amendment came in there was no safeguard as to what would happen with the information. It is definitely an improvement to the bill.

I also note that there is no reciprocal agreement between the United States and Canada or, for that matter, between any other foreign state and Canada so that foreign states would have to give that information to our security services within Canada.

The reason we had to make these changes within our legislation and allow the airlines to give that information is that we do have a Privacy Act that represents the rights of Canadians. There is no such act in the U.S. That information can already be given if the airlines decide to do it, but the bottom line is that they do not have to. Our government has not ensured that there will be a reciprocal agreement because it was not there saying it would stand up for the rights of Canadians. It was in there jumping when the U.S. said “Give this to us right now or you're not flying into our country”. That is what it was about.

Quite frankly, the privacy commissioner commented on that as well. He commented on how it was unjust. I will not use his exact words, because there were some who were not happy with his words. I did not have a problem with them. He thought it was somewhat unjust that the U.S. would demand the information right now and not give Canadians and the Parliament of Canada a reasonable period of time in which to have input and debate. Normally we would get a bill, take it to committee and witnesses would be able to come to committee. Citizens of Canada who had objections would be able to possibly appear before committee, but because the U.S. wanted the information immediately or it would disallow or restrict flights into the U.S., no opportunity was given to have the legislation to go through the normal process within the Parliament of Canada.

That is not just unjust but is really a show of disrespect and disregard, I believe, for the relationship that Canada has with the U.S. We have not been a confrontational northern neighbour. We have been a willing, caring, approachable neighbour. Canada has worked well with countries throughout the world, not just with the U.S. It is not acceptable that at the whim of the Americans, at the snap of their fingers, the government jumps to the tune of the U.S. government. We are here to represent Canadians. We are not here to jump.

The minister responsible for the issues relating to softwood lumber is in the House. Frankly, the softwood lumber issue has been quite an annoyance for me simply because I am greatly concerned that this government is going to buckle under and sell out our forestry workers in B.C. and throughout Canada. I am concerned that the government will sell out workers in general who have fought to maintain raw logs within Canada for value added jobs within the country. I am concerned that U.S. officials are going to snap their fingers and demand that raw logs head down to the U.S. so its sawmills and plants can operate and to heck with Canadian workers.

Quite frankly, I see this government buckling under and I think that is what we are going to see over the holidays. Merry Christmas, forestry workers in Canada, and from the Government of Canada, no jobs, as we send the present of raw logs down to the U.S. Merry Christmas. It has been disappointing to see this from our government.

I also want to comment on Bill C-42, the public safety act, from which this legislation was taken so it could be rushed through to address the concerns of the Americans. We expected a lot more decisive action on the part of the government with respect to that bill. Bill C-42 gives a lot of power to a lot of ministers but there is not a whole lot of oversight to ensure they act responsibly. Again, the government does not have the respect of Canadians for its actions. It is becoming very clear that Canadians do not expect the government to act on their behalf.

That became quite clear last week when Bill C-36 was before us. I wish to say again that I believe opposition parties in the House have been very willing to co-operate with the government to try to move legislation forward to address the issues that came up as a result of September 11. What we saw last week was a show of absolute disregard for the voices of Canadians, with closure implemented on Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism legislation, which is one of the most crucial pieces of legislation to come before the House and one of the most crucial pieces of legislation infringing on the civil liberties of Canadians. The government invoked closure. Was there any need for it? Was there a big rush for it? Was somebody running off to a Christmas party so that legislation concerning the civil liberties of Canadians had to be rushed through? Was there some other absolutely urgent piece of legislation that we had to get before the House? Did we have to make sure all of this was done before the Christmas break? Was that more important than listening to the comments parliamentarians were hearing from citizens in their ridings?

We are still hearing comments about this. I would wager that the greatest number of comments coming through on everybody's e-mail were telling us to get rid of Bill C-36 because it does not have to be like this. We do not have to go to the great length of infringing on the civil liberties of Canadians in order to address terrorist concerns and we can fight terrorism without all the infringements within Bill C-36.

What is crucially important is to recognize that this government invoked closure and then had no business to deal with. Talk about a slap in the face for the rights of Canadians. The government did not want to hear any more debate on Bill C-36 because it wanted this legislation and would not listen to anybody else. That is what it appears to be and it is not acceptable.

At some point I expect that Canadians will let the government know what they think about it, whether it be before the next election or at the time of the next election. I do not think we will see the arrogant kind of approach to the views of Canadians and parliamentarians that we have been seeing over the last while.

I hope the government recognizes that Canadians are not happy with that, will take it to heart and will not continue with this type of approach in the House.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today and speak to Bill C-44, which was split as suggested by the Bloc Quebecois. This is part of Bill C-42, which was a follow-up to Bill C-36.

I would like to help Quebecers and Canadians who are listening understand how it is that Bill C-42 ended up being introduced in the House on November 22, 2001. This bill is 98 pages in length. The bill is considered to be a measure of extreme urgency. This is the second anti-terrorist bill, the first one being Bill C-36.

Thanks to the Bloc Quebecois' actions, particularly questions to the government on the relevance of Bill C-42, it became clear that the only true measure in Bill C-42 that needs to be dealt with in a hurry is the one which became Bill C-44, a bill that is one page long. Bill C-44, which we are discussing today, is essentially a measure to align Canadian legislation with that of the U.S.

I will come back to this, because since September 11, all this government has done is harmonize our policy and procedures with the U.S., because it has no initiative, nor has it ever had any.

All this government does, is go along with what is done elsewhere. Obviously, one can understand that when events as tragic as those that occurred in the United States happen, it is our duty, as neighbours, to adopt security measures.

We would hope and wish that all of these security measures would respect the rights and freedoms of Quebecers and Canadians, rights that are so important to our democratic society which, we hope, preserves our personal rights and freedoms at all times.

If ever we were to violate these rights, we would quite simply be conceding to terrorists. Once again, they would win if we were to make any significant changes that would result in a violation of our rights and freedoms. That is what the Liberal government has been doing since this crisis.

In the end, the week of November 22 was a difficult week for the Liberal government. First, there was Bill C-36. For two weeks now, since November 22 when the bill was introduced in the House and debate was stifled, the Liberal government has gagged debate on this bill, the first antiterrorist bill for which more than 80 witnesses were heard.

In the end, the government passed the bill, in spite of the recommendations and in spite of the 66 very relevant amendments moved by the Bloc Quebecois. In particular, we were asking a sunset clause to be included in this anti-terrorist bill, which was obviously aimed at limiting the rights of Quebecers and Canadians.

We all felt, like the majority of the witnesses who appeared before the committee, that this bill had to cease to be in force after three years. We see what is happening elsewhere, in other societies and in other countries. We should already plan an end to this bill, which would compel us to review it in its entirety. In the meantime, again, the Bloc Quebecois moved an amendment requiring an annual review of the bill to ensure that rights and freedoms are respected.

Of course, the Liberal government rejected all these amendments. It would much rather keep on violating rights and freedoms as much as possible and appropriating all the power it can.

We always wonder why a government that should be working in the best interests of its population acts in such a way. I keep telling our listeners that we have to be careful because a government always want to control things.

In Bill C-36, the government made sure it had control over pretty well everything, including the rights and freedoms of the people in this country, especially Quebec, which concerns me. It is difficult when the ministers, who have made statements in the House on Bills C-36, C-42 and C-44, tell us we will be able to exercise our rights in committee, we will be able to make amendments there and they will listen to us there. But this is not the case. This is the harsh reality for our viewers.

The government does not listen to us. It listens to itself. It does not even listen to the recommendations of its own members. There are members of the Liberal Party who were opposed. Some did not vote for Bill C-36.

Today in the papers, a Liberal member was very critical of Bill C-42. So, obviously, we are not the only ones defending the rights and freedoms of people in Quebec and Canada.

Few people in the Liberal Party, only one member in fact, since the advent of the important Bills C-36 and C-42, have opposed the direction taken by the Liberal government. It is all to his credit, but it reflects very badly on all the others who blithely follow the recommendations of officials and, more importantly, the directives of ministers. That is what is hard to accept.

This is what the citizens of Quebec and Canada must understand. They are lucky, in the end, there are still opposition parties in the House that can ask the right questions and, more importantly, hold the real debates, which do not take place in the House. The real debates are in the media, through the media, which have stepped in because that is the way it works here in the House.

We are not heard. Our amendment proposals are not heard. Once again, the media hear the recommendations and especially the real substantive debates contributed by the opposition parties.

A very important substantive debate, initiated by the Bloc, among others, in fact by my colleague from Berthier—Montcalm, was the one on Bill C-36. The debate is not over yet. Daily resolutions arrive in our offices in protest over Bill C-36. The people of Quebec and Canada call on us daily to oppose Bill C-36, but it was passed in the House.

Even if we wanted to help them, we can no longer do so. There was a gag order. The Liberal government, unilaterally, put an end to discussions on Bill C-36, the Anti-terrorism Act. Yet, the day after, there was no debate in the House for two hours because there was nothing to debate. This is the harsh reality. We have to live with that every day.

Earlier we had a substantive discussion the hon. member for Champlain initiated on the sad situation of some 278,000 seniors who are deprived of the guaranteed income supplement simply because they are not unaware that they are entitled to it. A House committee, which includes Liberal members, has unanimously put this terrible situation before the House.

Today the hon. member for Champlain wanted to debate the issue. Of course, the government has once again forced, by a vote, an end to the debate. Therefore, we were unable to learn the positions of the members of the Liberal Party, the Canadian Alliance or other opposition parties on this terrible issue where 230,000 seniors, men and women, have been for many years deprived of money they are entitled to. That is the harsh reality members of parliament have to deal with.

We try to initiate debates in the House. Today the government forced us to vote on having the House proceed to the orders of the day. Of course, once again, the harsh reality is that debates will be delayed. Meanwhile, just before the holiday season, there are seniors, men and women, who will not get such big sums, which would ensure them to enjoy a nice holiday season. The Liberal government chose not to hold a debate on this substantive report, which pointed to the existence of this tragic situation.

Again, I thank the Bloc Quebecois member for Champlain, who raised that issue. He held a press conference to highlight this sad situation, where 230,000 Canadians, men and women, including 64,000 Quebecers, who are entitled to income supplement, are not getting that money.

This is over $3.2 billion that the government kept unjustifiably and that belongs to them. The government cannot tell us today that it is unable to reach them. When it wants them to go voting, when it is doing the census, it goes knocking on their doors and gets them.

However, when the time comes to help them and give them what is owed to them—this is not money that they owe the government; it is money that the government owes them—what the Liberal government does is hide the money, through all kinds of forms that are so complicated that, eventually, people are unable to submit them or, in the case of some seniors, they cannot even read them.

These past two weeks have been very difficult for the Liberal government, which is not listening at all to the people, which is not listening at all to the thoughtful and smart recommendations that may come from opposition parties, and even from its own ranks.

I will continue with Bill C-42 that is leading us to Bill C-44.

Bill C-42 was introduced in the House on November 22. We had a difficult debate on this bill. Right from the start, the Bloc Quebecois was able to clearly read the intentions of the government, especially concerning major powers that it is now giving to ministers, and them alone. These are powers delegated to ministers, including the Minister of Environment, the Minister of Agriculture and other ministers in this House, powers to take interim orders without being subject to parliamentary procedure.

In this regard, when regulations are prepared, there is a very important procedure requiring that regulations be submitted to the Privy Council so that it can ensure that they are in accordance with the charter of rights and freedoms. Ministers have been given the power to take interim orders. This obviously goes against the whole parliamentary procedure.

Quebecers and Canadians who are listening should be aware that, were it not for the Bloc Quebecois and other opposition parties, Bill C-42 would have been passed before the holiday season. The government was determined to ram Bill C-42 through the House. Finally, when direct questions were put to the leader of the government by the Bloc Quebecois and others as to what could not have been done on September 11 that could now be done under the bill, no answer was forthcoming.

The only answer we got about Bill C-44 was “The Americans have their requirements. They want to check the information on passengers. If we want Canadian airlines to do business in the United States, they will have to provide the information required by the American government”.

Naturally, we asked questions to the government House leader. Among other things, we asked him why the urgent provisions would not be included in a separate bill, since we have to meet the requirements of the American legislation by January 18. That is why we have Bill C-44 before us today, and I obviously have comments to make on this bill.

But I have more to say about Bill C-42. When this legislation was introduced in the House, we were opposed to these interim orders which, without any input from the House, give discretionary powers to ministers and even allow the Minister of National Defence to create military security zones without the authorization, which has normally always been required, of the provincial governors in council. Thus, it is an exceptional power that is given only to the Minister of National Defence.

For the benefit of our listeners, let me quote from an article published in today's La Presse , that sums up well the position of one Liberal member. Manon Cornellier, from the La Presse bureau in Ottawa, wrote:

If Bill C-42 on public security is not amended, the Liberal member for Mount Royal told Le Devoir that he will have to vote against it. He thus becomes the first government member to show publicly his disagreement with this legislation.

The problem with this legislation is that it upsets the balance between the executive, parliamentary and judiciary arms. More powers are given to the executive.

Of course, the article refers to the Liberal member for Mount Royal, an internationally known lawyer and law teacher at McGill University. The article goes on to say:

A first study of Bill C-42 prompted the member to worry about the provisions that will allow the creation of military security zones and those that will give some ministers the power to issue interim orders without first obtaining the agreement of the cabinet or parliament.

The Liberal member for Mount Royal is adopting the position that was defended from the very first moment here in this House by the Bloc Quebecois. If the Bloc had not been here in the House to defend the interests of Quebecers, today we would be having to live with Bill C-42, a danger for the rights and freedoms of Quebecers. It is dangerous to give ministers the possibility of making interim orders that do not comply with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or to give the Minister of National Defence the power of imposing his army anywhere in Quebec without being invited to by the Government of Quebec. This is the harsh reality of a government which has made such a decision in the name of a noble cause.

The battle against terrorism throughout the world is a noble cause, and not one single person in Quebec or in Canada is unaffected by it. All of us have been touched by the tragic events that struck our American neighbours on September 11. There is, however, not one single person who is prepared to have all his or her rights taken away because of those events, particularly when the leader of the government, the Prime Minister, is asked “What could you not do on September 11 that you could do now once a bill like Bill C-42 is enacted?” No answer is forthcoming, purely and simply because the government could take action under existing legislation.

The Prime Minister and ministers such as the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Transport tell us: “The powers contained in Bill C-42 are all ones we have already”. That is false. These are not existing powers, they are new powers the government wants to acquire. Proof of this lies in the statement made by the Liberal member for Mount Royal, quoted in today's La Presse and available for all Quebecers to read.

In this House, it must be understood that the people of Quebec and of Canada are nobody's fools, and they may well be better informed than the ministers and members of the Liberal government.

Opposition members, including Bloc Quebecois members, were very quick in finding out the problems with Bill C-42 and explaining them to the public. The debates did not take place in this House, but outside, in the media. We had to use the media. This is the harsh reality.

Why? Because the government used closure with Bill C-36. The government gagged the opposition to prevent it from getting to the bottom of things and helping Quebecers and Canadians fully understand the scope of Bill C-36. We were gagged. This is why the debates took place outside the House, so much so that every day we still talk to Quebecers and Canadians who ask us to do something to prevent Bill C-36 from coming into effect. But it is too late. The debate was not concluded here in the House. This is why it is still raging in the media. Every day, we read the comments of people who are opposed to Bill C-36. But it is too late. The bill was passed by the government, rushed through by the Liberal majority in the House. This is the reality and this is what Quebecers must understand.

Luckily for Quebecers, we will not have to live with Bill C-42 before the Christmas holiday.

There is no doubt that the government will use closure again if it runs out of time, as was the case this week. We discussed Bill C-42. I am the Bloc Quebecois critic for transport issues. I was contacted. We were told that there was not enough on the legislative agenda and that Bill C-42 would be brought back. It was not even on the agenda that day.

The government brought back this very important bill, which is challenged even by Liberal members, and said “There is not enough on the legislative agenda; therefore, we are bringing back Bill C-42”. We discussed the issue and the debates are underway. I had the opportunity to make a speech on Bill C-42 which is not yet completed. I have 29 minutes left. But what will happen if the government again runs out of things to do before the Christmas holiday? It will again bring back a bill that is extremely controversial and regarding which the Liberal majority still has a lot of work to do. Ministers must try to understand the bill and explain it to their colleagues. The harsh reality is that we will again debate Bill C-42.

I just hope for Quebecers that this is not the Christmas gift the federal government is planning for them. If Bill C-42 were passed before the holidays, that would be quite a lump of coal for them to get in their Christmas stocking. That is what the government is trying to do; it wants to pull a fast one on us by ramming Bill C-42 through the House.

This brings me to Bill C-44 now before us. Again, Bill C-44 was put together in a rush by drawing from Bill C-42 because the Americans want information on passengers on flights to the U.S. or passing through U.S. airspace. It is very understandable that we should discuss the American requirements.

How can the Canadian government distort these requirements? Everything seemed perfectly clear, but I read section 115 of the American legislation passed last November 19. It says:

1. Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act,each air carrier and foreign air carrier operating a passenger flight in foreign air transportation to the United States shall provide to the Commissioner of Customs by electronic transmission a passenger and crew manifest containing the information specified in paragraph (2).

(a ) The full name of each passenger and crew member

(b) The date of birth and citizenship of each passenger and crew member

(c) The sex of each passenger and crew member.

(d) The passport number and country of issuance of each passenger and crew member if required for travel.

(e) The United States visa number or resident alien card number of each passenger and crew member, as applicable.

(f ) Such other information as the Under Secretary,in consultation with the Commissioner of Customs, determines is reasonably necessary to ensure aviation safety.

These are the requirements of the American legislation.

Reading Bill C-44, we see that it contains what the Canadian government is asking for. Section 115 of the American legislation gives an explanation of the requirements, that is what information the Americans require.

There is no mention in Bill C-44 of the list of requirements. It states as follows:

4.83 (1) Despite section 5 of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act—

We have legislation to protect the personal information we are obliged to provide and, obviously, we have to deviate from that act:

—to the extent that that section relates to obligations set out in Schedule 1 to that Act...an operator of an aircraft departing from Canada or of a Canadian aircraft departing from any place outside Canada may...provide to a competent authority...any information—

The information is not specified. It is stated that the governor in council may make regulations respecting the type or classes of information that may be provided.

Thus, instead of having a clear and simple bill indicating what information is to be required, it is stated that this will be given in subsequent regulations.

The Bloc Quebecois' first question for the government House leader in connection with Bill C-44 is: Could you provide us with the bill's companion regulations, so that we can have a better idea of Bill C-44? Why is the required information not listed? You plan to put it in regulations? Well then, give us the regulations.

We were promised the regulations for last Friday. The House leader had mentioned an outline and came to tell me that they thought regulations would be better. Then he changed his mind and came back to tell me that we were back to an outline only. We did not receive the regulations on Friday. We received them on Monday, toward the end of the afternoon, so late that we were not able to examine them until the next morning in committee. It was the same for the government members.

We had documents that were given us prior to the committee meeting, but we had not had the time to go through them all individually. There was a pile of material. Even the members of the Liberal majority on the committee had questions. I sincerely believed that we had not received the regulations and they did not even know that they had.

Finally, at some point, an official came to tell the parliamentary secretary that the regulations were included as an attachment to the material.

We then examined the list of regulations and the list of information required. Once again, there was a list, which had been mentioned by the government. But that was not what the parliamentary secretary wanted to talk to us about in committee.

He did not want to talk to us about the regulations. He had an amendment to put forward. Obviously, this is what goes on in committee; we put forward amendments. The amendment was put forward by the government and all the parliamentary secretary had to tell us was “We will get started while we are waiting. There is an amendment on the way and I should have it”.

Finally, we received it during our proceedings, because it was not yet ready. According to an intelligent explanation given by the parliamentary secretary, this amendment came from the privacy commissioner, who had been consulted about Bill C-44 and who had suggested this amendment, which I will read in a minute. Finally, we received the amendment and the privacy commissioner appeared before the committee.

The privacy commissioner had not had the list of information contained in the regulations or in the draft regulations. The commissioner had discussed Bill C-44 without the list of information to be supplied. This bill will allow airline companies to release information about Quebecers and Canadians, and Canada's privacy commissioner had not seen the list of information that would be supplied.

When I asked him if it was important that he have the list, he answered that he had received it 30 minutes before appearing before the committee. I then asked him whether he had it when the bill was being discussed, and he said no. It was not important. It did not matter, when introducing an amendment, to know what information had to be provided to the Americans.

Things have been going badly for the Liberal government for two weeks now, and it kept on going badly for the Standing Committee on Transport. The privacy commissioner was appearing before the committee and, 30 minutes prior to the start of the meeting, the minister did not know what information the Americans were requiring, and what information on Quebec and Canadian citizens we were to provide. This was not important to him. He had even proposed an amendment without knowing what information would be contained in future regulations that the governor in council might pass in the future. Talk about confusing.

When we questioned the privacy commissioner, we asked him “Are you not concerned about the list of information, which you only saw 30 minutes prior to testifying?” He replied, “No, it does not concern us”.

One of the information items, item no. 23 reads as follows:

Airlines could provide passengers' telephone numbers to the Americans.

I have great difficulty in understanding how the privacy commissioner is not concerned that we would be providing the Americans with the telephone numbers of citizens of Quebec and Canada. He himself admitted that such measures could be discussed.

It is important to understand that no regulations have been adopted yet, but once all regulations are, they will come into force immediately. They will not come back to the committee for review until several days later—even up to one year later—at which time the committee will be able to examine the regulations and propose amendments.

I have here the amendment proposed by the privacy commissioner. It is a relevant amendment, and it reads as follows:

No information provided to a competent authority of a foreign state may be collected from that foreign state by the government of Canada or an institution thereof, as defined in section 3 of the Privacy Act, unless the information is collected for the purposes of protecting national security, public safety or defence.

His concern about the information provided to the Americans was that Canada could not request it, except for certain purposes. He had quite a problem with that. The commissioner feared that the Government of Canada might try to obtain the information through the back door.

There was clearly a problem, but not knowing what information was to be provided was not a problem. It was not important. As for the 29 types of information requested by the Americans, besides the phone number, and the fact that so much information could be provided to the Americans about our lives, about what we do and so on, about how the ticket was paid for, whether in cash or on a credit card—the credit card number could even be requested—that was not important for the commissioner. What mattered, however, was that the information provided to American authorities not come back to Canada through the back door.

The nature of the information that we give is not important, as long as it does not come back to Canada. I have a big problem with that. I asked the privacy commissioner “Why did you not present an amendment containing all that is included in the American legislation?” It is the list that I read a few moments ago, the list of information the Americans included in their legislation. They put everything they wanted: the full name of each passenger, the full name of each crew member, their date of birth, and so forth. His answer was “That would not have gone through. If I had proposed that amendment, it would not have been passed”. They would not have included anything contained in the American legislation. He was probably right. That is the reality. They did not want to include what was already in the American legislation. Why?

We asked the House what information was to be provided. The government would not tell us and then agreed to table draft regulations that would include the list. We got the draft regulations two days later than we were supposed to. Its aim was to get them to us so late we would not have time to analyze them. It tabled an amendment in committee so our legal service could not analyze it. That is the reality. That is the way things work in this House.

The privacy commissioner, whose job it is to protect our interests, said “I have not tabled an amendment that would include the list, because I knew it would not be passed, that the government would reject it”.

When I asked him further questions to find out what he was afraid of, he said he was afraid he would no longer be listened to. I had to ask him “Are you afraid of losing your job?” He said he was not. He was not, because he had a seven year mandate. This means there will be someone else after that. I think he is afraid he will not be reappointed. That is the truth of it. That is the way it works. Quebecers and Canadians have to understand that.

The government controls the House of Commons, the Senate, the supreme court and the privacy commissioner. Such is life. This is the way it works. Then the government tables bills and asks us for amendments in committee. The government asks us to table amendments. “You will see”, it says, “we will look at them”. The Bloc Quebecois tabled 66 amendments to the anti-terrorism legislation. As many again were tabled by the other opposition parties. The government did nothing with them. The one accepted, in the case of the Bloc Quebecois, was the one that added the word “cemetery” to the list of heinous crimes. They agreed to add the word “cemetery”. I am very grateful. This is the reality.

Quebecers must understand that this government controls everything, from start to finish. I realize the Prime Minister says “I have no problem. If you have a problem with this bill, challenge it in court”. I will not say what I think, I could be accused of all sorts of things. I have a good idea what will happen. I have no doubt that, when the Prime Minister says there is no problem, he knows that in advance. He controls everything in this country. It is no problem, that is the way it works.

We must examine Bill C-44. We are only at report stage and we will have some tough questions for the government on this bill and on Bill C-42.

I have a message for those who are listening to us: keep sending us e-mails and letters telling us that you do not want Bill C-36 to be implemented by the government, even though it has already passed it. Bill C-36 is now in effect. You can be sure that the government will not amend it. The government will wait until a colossal blunder occurs before acting on the recommendations made by the 80 witnesses who appeared before the committee, and by opposition parties. These recommendations were perfectly acceptable and included a sunset clause, a clause providing for an annual review like the one included in similar legislation throughout the world.

The harsh reality is that the current Liberal government has decided to control everything, including the House of Commons, the other place, the supreme court, the office of the privacy commissioner and all the institutions in this country that should protect our interests.

I cannot get over the fact that, as regards Bill C-44, the privacy commissioner, who proposed an amendment that was accepted by the government, did not want to propose another one whereby the information to be provided to the Americans would have been listed. He did not make that suggestion because, as he said, the government would not have accepted it.

The Americans are smart enough to include such a provision in their legislation, but not us. We must trust the government in making regulations that will be adopted, as provided under the bill, by the governor in council. And these regulations will specify the types or classes of information.

We are given the list of the 29 types of information to be included in the regulations, but we do not have any say in the process. That information will be included in the regulations, which will then be submitted to the committee in a few months.

Meanwhile, the rights and freedoms of Canadians will have been infringed on by a government that does not have any backbone and that wants increasingly more power to control everyone.

The government surely figured that with $30 million, given the number of federal public servants, it could divide them and control them all. This is what the Liberal government is doing.

On that note, I hope that all members will have a nice Christmas holiday and that Liberal Party members will take this opportunity to do some soul searching and make good resolutions for the year 2002, because they are ending 2001 on a very bad note.

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the presentation by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport. I rise to speak in favour of Bill C-44.

In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, on both sides of the 49th parallel, there has been a blur of legislative activity. In the United States, a mere 10 days after the horrendous attacks, Senator Ernest Hollings of South Carolina introduced Bill S-1447, the aviation and transportation security act.

In one bold act, congress sought to restore the confidence of the American flying public. Passengers, baggage, mail and cargo were to be screened. In flight crew were mandated new training to deal with air rage and terrorist crisis management. Air marshals appeared on U.S. flights. A complex passenger profiling system was enhanced and improved.

Despite an anthrax attack on Capitol Hill, which shut down congressional offices, consensus was quickly reached to prove that, while America led an impressive fight against terrorism abroad, the fight at home would be just as vigorous. The bill moved through both houses of congress faster than a rumour went through our parliamentary press gallery. President Bush signed the bill into law a mere eight weeks after its introduction.

In Canada the blur of activity was akin to the way tires spin in the first winter snowstorm: lots of noise, a little bit of smoke, but little action. The government was about as agile and as surefooted as a newborn calf. Unlike the calf, both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport are seasoned professional politicians with nearly 50 years of parliamentary experience between them. The lack of leadership would have been funny if it were not so dangerous.

The Standing Committee on Transport and Government Operations was promptly mandated to look into aviation security. However the government quickly sent what it saw as more urgent matters in terms of legislation to the House. The Civil Aviation Tribunal needed to be extended to cover mariners and Air Canada's 15% share limit needed to be raised so that those who owned less than 10% of its shares could somehow be encouraged to buy more. Yet we do not know of a single current shareholder who owns the 10% limit who wants to buy more.

The Warsaw convention of 1929 also needed to be updated to deal with the realities of the third millennium. High priorities all, but top priorities for the air industry and Canadians they are not at all.

I must not omit the fact that the standing committee was paying some attention to the matter of aviation security. However, while witnesses from Air Canada, the pilots association and CUPE were advocating air marshals and other security measures, the government was desperately trying to be seen to be acting without in any way being sure what it wanted to achieve or how.

Then on the eve of the standing committee's scheduled November 26 and 27 trip to Washington, D.C., the rumour mill began to swirl with promises of action. On November 20, at about 5.25 in the evening, the government House leader sought unanimous consent to suspend the standing orders and introduce a government bill at 2 p.m. the next afternoon. The bill, an act to amend certain acts of Canada and to enact measures for implementing the biological and toxin weapon convention in order to enhance public safety, would be complex and a briefing would be offered.

Two months had passed since Senator Hollings introduced the aviation and transportation security act and there was now a flicker of hope that our government would finally react with some real legislation.

At 2 o`clock in the afternoon of November 21, the promised bill was nowhere in sight. Last minute problems delayed its introduction. In fact Bill C-42 was introduced the next day, on November 22, and contained some 19 parts dealing with everything from money laundering to the implementation of a 1977 treaty on biotoxins with a miniature section on aviation security thrown in for good measure and optics.

With the same deft touch that marked the bill's introduction, last Wednesday at 3.05 p.m., within a week of first reading of Bill C-42 in the House, the government House leader was again on his feet to state that unanimous consent had been obtained and required to delete section 4.83 in clause 5 from that bill and introduce a new bill, introducing that section immediately. Furthermore, the new bill would be ordered for consideration at second reading for last Friday, November 30, less than two sitting days later.

The House ran out of things to say not long after that and there were calls to adjourn early. On the one hand, the government agenda is light, but the need to add the contents of section 4.83 in clause 5 of the former Bill C-42 of the Aeronautics Act was urgent. Given the recent directionless “hurry up and wait” antics of the government, we have to wonder why one clause is worth so much haste.

There is a saying that everything makes sense. In other words, if we examine a situation long enough, hard enough and carefully enough in the fullness of time, everything will make sense. For this reason we need to look at the clauses in Bill C-42 which deal with the type of information an airline or other transport authority may provide to authorities.

Essentially there are three clauses. First, section 5, clause 4.82 would allow the Minister of Transport to require any air carrier to provide the minister with information that is in the air carrier's control concerning the persons on board or expected to be on board an aircraft for any flight where the minister believed there is a threat to that flight and therefore the public.

Second, section 5, clause 4.83 would allow a Canadian airline operating an international flight to a foreign state to provide a competent authority of that state any information that is in its control relating to persons on board or expected to be on board the aircraft and that is required by the laws of the foreign state.

Third, section 69 adds a new section 88.1 to the Immigration Act. The new section reads:

A transportation company bringing persons to Canada shall, in accordance with the regulations, provide prescribed information, including documentation and reports.

The summary, which accompanied Bill C-42, described the first two clauses as requiring air carriers or persons who operated aviation reservation systems to provide information to the minister concerning specified flights or persons. The same summary stated that the purpose of the third clause was to require transportation companies bringing persons to Canada to provide prescribed information which would enhance the department's ability to perform border checks and execute arrest warrants. In fact, clauses 4.82 and 4.83 of section 5 had a different purpose than section 69, so perhaps it is not a complete surprise that they address different types of information. It may, however, come as a surprise to some member in the House that airlines maintain two different types of files on their passengers.

The first is called the passenger name record, or PNR. This is the file that the airline creates when it reserves a flight for a passenger. It contains information such as the passenger's name, address, phone number and form of payment. It also contains the information on the reservation itself, such as boarding city, destination, connections, flight numbers, dates, stops and seat assignment. Based on this information the manifest is prepared for each flight showing who is sitting where. Routinely, at present, this is the type of information that is handed over to the authorities whenever there is an airline accident.

The second type of information is the APIS, or advanced passenger information system data. It includes only five data fields: passenger name; date of birth; citizenship, nationality, document issuing country; gender; and passport number or document number. Other than the passenger's name, this information is not normally collected by the airlines. In fact, unless passports are machine readable, much of this information has to be entered manually. For this reason, airlines only collect it when they have to provide it to immigration authorities. Currently the United States requires this type of information for U.S. bound Asian passengers transiting through Vancouver under the Canada-U.S. memorandum of understanding which allows such passengers to go to U.S. customs without first passing through Canadian customs.

It is my understanding that clauses 4.82 and 4.83 of section 5 of Bill C-42 would have required the airlines to give the PNR information to the Minister of Transport and that section 69 would have required them to give APIS information to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

Let us contrast this with the U.S. legislation. There, the new aviation and transportation security act mandates the administrator of the federal aviation administration to require air carriers to expand the application of the current computer assisted passenger prescreening system, CAPPS, to all passengers, regardless of baggage. In addition, passengers selected under this system are subject to additional security measures, including checks of carry on baggage and person before boarding. In effect both the PNR and APIS information are sent electronically to the U.S. customs service super computer in Newington, Maryland. There the CAPPS system which they have developed enables the passenger profiling that keeps America's skies safe. The United States is actively fighting its war on terrorism. It is walking the talk, unlike what we see from this government.

Thus it is instructional to read section 115 of America's aviation and transportation security act. It reads:

Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, each air carrier and foreign air carrier operating a passenger flight in foreign air transportation to the United States shall provide to the commissioner of customs by electronic transmission a passenger and crew manifest containing the information specified in paragraph (2). Carriers may use the advanced passenger information system...

(2) INFORMATION-A passenger and crew manifest for a flight required under paragraph (1) shall contain the following information:

(A) The full name of each passenger and crew member.

(B) The date of birth and citizenship of each passenger and crew member.

(C) The sex of each passenger and crew member.

(D) The passport number and country of issuance of each passenger and crew member if required for travel.

(E) The United States visa number or resident alien card number of each passenger and crew member, as applicable.

(F) Such other information as the Under Secretary, in consultation with the Commissioner of Customs, determines is reasonably necessary to ensure aviation safety.

(3) PASSENGER NAME RECORDS-The carriers shall make passenger name record information available to the customs service upon request.

I would like, now, to consider the text that Bill C-44, which we are debating today, would add to the Aeronautics Act:

Despite section 5 of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, to the extent that section relates to obligations set out in Schedule 1 to that Act relating to the disclosure of information, an operator of an aircraft departing from Canada or of a Canadian aircraft departing from any place outside Canada may, in accordance with the regulations, provide to a competent authority in a foreign state any information that is in its control relating to persons on board or expected to be on board the aircraft and that is required by the laws of the foreign state.

If we boil it down to its essentials, it reads that an operator of an aircraft departing from Canada, or of a Canadian aircraft departing from any place outside of Canada, may provide to a competent authority any information that is required by the laws of that foreign state relating to persons on board.

For example, the words “operator of an aircraft departing from Canada” in Bill C-44 would allow Air Canada to give the U.S. customs service the information that section 115, which I read, of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act mandates with respect to passengers on its transborder routes.

Similarly, the words “Canadian aircraft departing from any place outside Canada” would permit Air Canada to give the same information with respect to its flights from Australia and New Zealand to Honolulu en route to Canada.

Members will remember that I said that everything in the end makes sense. Just as I was trying to figure why, after several aborted attempts by the government to improve aviation security in Canada, Bill C-44 was being rushed through with such haste, I had a look at section 115 of the U.S. aviation and transportation security act. There are two concepts that are very important.

First, it applies to both U.S. and foreign carriers flying to the United States from other countries. Therefore, it applies to Air Canada and charter flights operated by WestJet, Air Transat and Sky Service.

Second, section 115 comes into force not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of the act, which was signed by President Bush on November 19. That means that it will come into force on January 18, 2002, while the House is still not back in session from its Christmas break. Therefore, as I understand it, if Canadian carriers are to comply with U.S. legislation, the House has to add the text of clause 4.83 to the Aeronautics Act before we rise mid next week.

The reason we are discussing this clause in the legislation today is not because of any desire, as was said by the Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of Transport, by the government to make our skies safer or to show leadership through decisive action, but because the United States acted and Canada's airlines told the government that if they could not lead, at least they should try to follow the U.S. and do so quickly.

Canadians can thank the United States congress for the bill. To the extent that it keeps our skies safer, no credit should go to the government but to the air industry for leaning on the government to follow the United States.

In the meantime, about the broader question of airport and airline security, Canadians are still left waiting and wondering when a hint of leadership may tumble out of the government and onto some legislation. It has been 14 weeks since the terrorist attacks and no serious legislative action has yet been taken by the government.

It sure makes one wonder. We have: an airport security system that has been clearly documented to be inadequate in terms of security; new security regimes being put in place in countless other countries; public demand for new security systems; air carrier demands for new management of airport security; pilot and fright crew demands for a new security regime, not to mention terrorist attacks; a massive drop in consumer confidence in flying; and a war. If this environment is not enough to inspire action from the government on air security, one has to wonder if it will ever get up off its backside and show some real leadership.

[André Harvey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to intervene today at third reading of Bill C-44. As all of my colleagues are aware, this bill is an extract of an important clause of Bill C-42 on public safety.

The central purpose of this bill is to enable Canadian air carriers to work constructively with their international partners in conducting an effective fight against terrorism.

The bill obviously is in response not to all of the countries affected by this war, but specifically to the U.S. bill entitled the Aviation and Transportation Security Act. In this bill, we are asked to work with the U.S. commissioner of customs and provide all relevant information needed to bring this fight to an end.

As the Minister of Transport has said on several occasions, it is the prerogative of a sovereign country, like our neighbour to the south, to request vital information so we can together put an end to this extremely difficult task of fighting international terrorism.

Our American counterparts have yet to spell out the details they require, but it will not be long. They will soon define the most essential criteria that will allow them, and us too, to fight terrorism effectively.

The most important consideration is that this U.S. measure comes into force on January 18. There is therefore an absolutely inescapable time constraint. The government, through the Minister of Transport, must act quickly so our carriers can deliver the goods quickly and continue to assume their responsibilities, for the very important economic recovery aided by the air carriers.

Unlike many of our international colleagues in work on economic development, Canada has a Privacy Act, which currently prevents us from collaborating more openly to meet U.S. demands.

Obviously, we had to check closely—and I wish to pay tribute to my colleagues on the committee—with the privacy commissioner that Bill C-44 was consistent with his mandate to protect privacy. The commissioner, according to a study that was considered important, had to deal with restrictions. He initially suggested amendments to the bill.

I had the opportunity to move an amendment in which the commissioner stresses that, regarding information asked on a very short term by our U.S. colleagues and by other countries, in terms of privacy, we will obviously have to invoke, national security, public security and collective defence.

The role of the commissioner has been extremely important and the amendment we have moved allows these requirements to be met.

The committee obviously had a lot to do to rapidly meet these requirements. I wish to thank and congratulate my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Transport. They worked in an extremely efficient way. I had the opportunity to appreciate the quality of the input of all my colleagues on the committee. I can assure you that it is quite impressive to see the seriousness with which all my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Transport worked.

I am convinced that Bill C-44 will meet those important requirements and allow us to satisfy our international colleagues, while respecting the rights and privacy of citizens.

This was done in co-operation with the privacy commissioner but most of all with all my colleagues on the committee. Once again, I thank them. I want to pay tribute to them for the quality of the work they did on the Standing Committee on Transport.

Of course, I am pleased to start debate on the bill at third reading. I am convinced that we will be able to pass this bill before the House rises for recess, since the Americans have decided that, by January 16, we should be able to meet their minimum requirements regarding a thorough screening of travellers entering their territory. I believe this is a highly sovereign demand on the part of the U.S. government and we should be able to respond in a constructive way.

Nuclear Fuel Waste Act

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise today to address Bill C-27, an act respecting the long-term management of nuclear fuel waste.

A few days ago, I spoke on Bill C-10, an act respecting the national marine conservation areas of Canada. My Bloc Quebecois colleagues also addressed Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism act, and Bill C-42, the public safety act.

I would like to explain from the outset what issues I will discuss over the next 40 minutes. First, I must point out that this government constantly displayed a confrontational attitude, despite the fact that Bloc Quebecois members were committed to co-operating regarding this bill, whether at second reading, during the review in committee, or at report stage.

The Bloc Quebecois, which acted in good faith at all stages of the parliamentary process, was always told by Liberal members opposite no, no, no.

This afternoon, I will again directly address my constituents and all Quebecers and Canadians. We feel that Bill C-27 is incomplete. It lacks transparency and it does not take into account public opinion.

Under the circumstances, we could have said no right from the beginning and made things complicated for the government, but no, we felt that we had to give our support at second reading in order to improve the bill in committee.

However, during the review in committee, when we heard witnesses and when the time came to amend the bill, Liberal members sitting on the committee said no, no, no, without really knowing what the issue was all about.

We are talking about the management of the country's nuclear fuel waste. I was stunned to the hear the Liberal member for Frontenac—Mégantic say, as he was leaving a meeting, that plutonium and uranium were no more dangerous than asbestos. The chair of the standing committee on natural resources and member for Nickel Belt also made a similar comment.

This is a serious matter. We heard many witnesses at the standing committee on natural resources. My colleague, the hon. member for Sherbrooke and Bloc Quebecois critic in this area, has done an excellent job, with some contribution from myself, in his desire to improve this bill.

It is clear, however, that the Liberal members of the committee did not have any idea what we or the witnesses were talking about. At that time, and still today, we were addressing nuclear waste, precisely, 24,000 tonnes of uranium and plutonium which will remain radioactive for some 25,000 years. This has nothing in common with asbestos.

When I hear comments like that, I feel there is no point in talking to the Liberal MPs. They heard all the same things we did, but understood nothing. I think they were there with their ears and eyes firmly closed. The only thing they could say was no, no. That was all we got out of them.

I will therefore continue to talk to our audience instead. Despite what the Liberal committee members have said, the taxpayers of Canada and Quebec are very much attuned to what is going on as far as waste in general is concerned, and nuclear waste in particular. I feel their judgment is far superior to that of the Liberals.

What is Bill C-27 all about? The whole thing dates back to 1989, when the Minister of the Environment of the day mandated the nuclear fuel waste and disposal environmental assessment commission, known as the Seaborn panel, from the name of its chair, to come up with a concept for the permanent storage of this country's nuclear waste.

I would like to digress for a moment. It would be mistaken to mix things and say that the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to Bill C-27. The Bloc supports strict management of nuclear waste. This is a matter of huge importance, and the government has not bothered in recent years to resolve it. The situation has continued, and today we realize that problem must be solved, but not at any cost.

The main recommendations of the Seaborn panel were that an agency be established that would hold public hearings and propose a type of management for this country's nuclear waste. It recommended as well that the cost of this country's waste management be assumed by the nuclear energy industry.

What is there in Bill C-27? Does it follow the letter of the recommendations of the Seaborn report? We must remember that the Minister of Natural Resources was drawing on the recommendations of the Seaborn report when he said he was going to draft the bill. This, however, is not what the chair of the standing committee on natural resources said to me. He said that the Seaborn report is outdated. I think the Seaborn report is very important. The Seaborn panel was independent. It lasted 10 years, cost a small fortune, but it has given us guidelines for the successful management of nuclear waste.

The management is to be independent of the nuclear energy industry. As the committee studied the matter, the Bloc Quebecois proposed a number of amendments to bring Bill C-27 closer to the conclusions of the Seaborn panel. Contrary to what the Minister of Natural Resources said in his speech at second reading, his bill bears no relation to the main recommendations of the panel.

Indeed, the Seaborn panel recommended that energy companies be excluded from the management committee that would propose a form of nuclear waste management.

Let us look just at recommendation 6.1.2, which advocates the creation of a nuclear fuel waste management agency. It reads as follows:

For various reasons, there is in many quarters an apprehension about nuclear power that bedevils the activities and proposals of the nuclear industry. If there is to be any confidence in a system for the long-term management of nuclear fuel waste and—

I am still quoting the Seaborn panel:

—a fresh start must be made in the form of a new agency. The agency must be at arm's length from the producers and current owners of the waste. Its overall commitment must be to safety.

Bill C-27 specifies that energy companies will have to establish a management committee to propose to the minister a long term nuclear fuel waste management concept.

Such a situation is tantamount to opening the henhouse door wide open to let the fox in. As far as the Bloc Quebecois is concerned, recommendation 6.1.2 should be fully implemented. Unfortunately, the Liberal government rejected it out of hand. Incidentally, a number of witnesses who appeared before the standing committee on natural resources also asked that Bill C-27 be amended to reflect that recommendation.

I will quote a few. Irene Kock, a research consultant with the Sierra Club of Canada, testified before the committee on November 8, 2001. She said, and I quote:

The Seaborn panel recommended that an independent agency be formed at arm's length from AECL and the nuclear utilities in order to manage the programs related to long-term nuclear fuel waste management, including detailed comparison of waste management options. The waste management organization must be at arm's length from the nuclear industry. This is a very key part of the recommendations from the Seaborn panel.

It is not just the Bloc Quebecois who says it. All the witnesses said the same thing to the committee. Irene Kock added “It was a very well thought out conclusion and must be incorporated in this legislation”.

I will quote from another testimony, namely that of Brennain Lloyd, a co-ordinator for Northwatch, who also testified on November 8, 2001:

The context is that there have been a number of experiences on the part of the public with Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, and with the nuclear industries more generally, specific to this issue of nuclear waste management and related siting processes. They've been very negative experiences for the greatest part, and that needs to be kept in mind.

She was warning the government about certain past experiences. Ms. Lloyd went on to say that:

The resulting mistrust and apprehension on the part of the public must be kept in constant consideration...Third, the waste management organization lacks independence. Given the track record of a number of the agencies that are proposed to be involved, that's particularly problematic. The panel was clear that the waste management organization must be independent and it must be perceived to be independent.

It said an independent agency, not an industry agency. This would be an industry agency. This in fact is what Bill C-27 proposes: a management committee composed of members of industry. This can only be problematic in terms of delivery, the ability to look more broadly at the issues, and the ability to engender public trust and engagement.

The Bloc Quebecois therefore proposed that paragraph 6(2) be amended as follows:

No nuclear energy corporation may be a member or shareholder of the waste management organization.

But what did the Liberal members say? No, no, no.

We have not lost our sense of humour or our desire to see the government make this bill into something that would be what the Seaborn panel and the general public wanted. We proposed other amendments.

I could talk all day about the amendments which the Bloc Quebecois proposed in committee. There were, and the member for Sherbrooke is nodding, between 40 and 45. The New Democratic Party and the Progressive Conservative/Democratic Representative Coalition also moved amendments.

But each time, the committee, which was chaired by a Liberal member and contained a Liberal majority, said no, no, no. At every stage of the process, they said they were right.

Earlier, the Canadian Alliance member spoke about the fact that the public had to be consulted, but it is plainly written in the bill that the governor in council “may”. In other words, it is not required. When you are told “you may do something” you always have a choice. The majority prevails. If one says “I have everything I need” or “I do not have what I need”, I am going to go ahead. In this case, what it says is that the public may be consulted.

This reminds me of the very moving times we went through in the summer of 2000, when this government wanted to import MOX fuel from Russia and the U.S. I stood up to this, all five feet, five inches of me.

The people of Saguenay--Lac-Saint-Jean, hon. members will recall, were on side with me on this. A total of 99.9% of my constituents said they were opposed to the importing of MOX. Some 120 municipalities throughout Quebec and a number of regional county municipalities did the same. The Quebec government and the aboriginal peoples voiced their opposition.

Atomic Energy of Canada officials came to the region, telling us that this was just a little rod that went into a big cylinder. They made it out to be such a wonderful and attractive thing that I would have been happy to have it as a decoration in my living room.

Away we went to consult people. This is not an expensive proposition, and it provides us with an opportunity to speak to people concerned by a problem. We talked to the experts. We asked their opinions. We also consulted the Quebec department of health. We even went to a university, along with our regional environmental committee, and held an information session. We invited three experts, who told us that the concept of importing MOX and the method planned for its transportation were not safe.

According to U.S. studies, this concept was not acceptable because it was not 100% sure. Afterward, people were entitled to make comments via the Atomic Energy of Canada website, and this took some 28 days.

So 99.9% of those in our region were opposed. Nevertheless, they went ahead and did it. One fine evening, I am not sure exactly when, the MOX shipment set out. Everyone was on the alert. We have the Bagotville military base in our area. They said they were going to bring the shipment in via CFB Bagotville or an Ontario military base. Let us remember that the MOX was headed for the Chalk River nuclear facility in Ontario.

One night—and I know because I took a stroll near the military base in Bagotville—there was quite a flurry of activity. We did not know when the big day would be, but people from national defence, from public safety and from the health sector were there. There was this flurry of activity. And yet, officials from Atomic Energy of Canada told us, when they came to see us, that there was no danger.

What was all the commotion about if there was no danger and if it was not serious, as they said at the time? Everyone was on edge.

They went ahead and they took it to Chalk River. This proves the government's attitude, that they went ahead despite what everyone thought. In my riding, it was a very strong majority. I held my own consultations. Representatives of Atomic Energy of Canada were in one room and I was in another, that the hotel where the consultation was taking place graciously let me use.

Before going into the room with the Atomic Energy of Canada representatives, people came to see me and sign a petition. They would then come back from the consultation and say to me, “Ms. Bujold, if I could, I would sign the petition twice. I am not sure about what they are saying”.

So we can see just how important the issue of nuclear waste is. We must consult with people. But this is not reflected in this bill.

We must manage our nuclear waste, because it our waste. We have to store it in a way such that it remains inactive for many years to come. Most of the waste that is currently being stored is at nuclear reactors located in Ontario. There are 24,000 tonnes of nuclear waste being stored there. That is a lot of nuclear waste.

We cannot count on the goodwill of a management committee that says it is the representative of these companies that are going to manage the storage.

We, elected members who represent people, must be kept informed of what is happening. We need to challenge them and say “Show us what you are going to say and do. We will accept it or reject it on behalf of our constituents, because we have been democratically elected.”

In committee we proposed a clause to the government which stated that members would have to be consulted in the House of Commons.

Madam Speaker, you are a member like me. When we run for election we say to our constituents “I am going to represent you on all issues. I am able to represent you. If I cannot represent you, I will consult with you and you will give me your opinion”.

People know that whether we are talking about domestic, nuclear or other kinds of waste, we must not become the world's dump. Nobody wants to have any kind of wastes in their backyard. We always say “Not in my backyard”.

So to reassure the public, we had asked the government that the plan be submitted here, in the House of Commons. What did the Liberals say? They said no, no and no. They refuse to be accountable to the people who elected them on a most important issue.

I do not think this is being very transparent. Since we have been sitting in this House, we have noticed that when introducing bills the government always says that it will listen to us, that it will refer the bill to committee for further study, that it will hear witnesses and be open to amendments.

That did not happen for Bill C-27. Nor did it happen for Bill C-36, Bill C-44 or Bill C-42. Who does this government take people for, particularly those people who represent all those who did not vote for the Liberals and that the Liberals no longer represent? I am talking about opposition parties.

I am thinking of people who take the trouble to appear before the committee. I recall that on the last day, before the committee began to examine the bill clause by clause, the mayors of Ontario municipalities came before it. They were involved with this issue because there are nuclear plants in their municipalities. They came to say to the committee “We have to be informed and be part of the development of management. We are involved on the front line because we have to protect our people”.

A member from the Progressive Conservative Democratic Representative Coalition proposed an amendment in this regard, and the members of the Liberal Party once again said no, no, no.

It was also pointed out that consideration should be given to having people representing the native communities on the committee. Some witnesses said that it was important that these communities be consulted. There are not just the experts, there are ordinary citizens as well, who have some expertise in this regard. The answer was no, no, no.

I think we should call them the no, no, no gang. This is what comes out as soon as opposition members introduce something intelligent. Initially they suggest that a bill be drafted. Officials then draft it. Then the minister or members representing the Liberal majority in committee must defend it. Most of the time, I think they do not even know what the subject is and this is unfortunate because it is extremely important.

It was not only yesterday that I started being concerned about nuclear waste and all sorts of waste that we import from the United States and elsewhere. The Bloc Quebecois even asked, through an amendment it put forward, to have the bill provide that we manage our own waste and contain a clause banning the importing of waste from elsewhere. This amendment too was rejected. The Liberal members said no, no, no and yet we know how important this is.

The Seaborn panel was set up by people who wanted to do something about an issue that had been dragging on for years. It took time to write the report. The panel made excellent recommendations. The Minister of Natural Resources, whom I really like, seemed to show goodwill. He had said from the beginning, and I believed him,“I rely on the reports of the Seaborn panel”. But over time he made an about-face.

Now I cannot make sense of the bill. There are many Quebecers and Canadians who will also be lost. Why? Because when it is passed, they will no longer be consulted. It will be the governor in council who will consult, because he “may” do so.

The first recommendation of the Seaborn panel was that the public should be consulted on any nuclear waste management principle. This is what should have been done. That was the panel's first recommendation. This is the one recommendation that should have served as a basis for all the other ones. The government ignored the one recommendation that should have been taken into account with this bill.

Had it not been disregarded, I would have told myself “At least the government is taking this issue seriously. It is not doing this to please people who are close to the powers that be. No, it is really presenting a bill that will reassure Canadians and Quebecers”. I would have welcomed this initiative.

I sat on the Standing Committee on the Environment for two years. When good things were happening, I would always say to the minister and the Liberal members “Yes, we will co-operate, because when it comes to the environment we have to co-operate to advance government initiatives”. That was always my attitude during these two years, and things worked well. When I did not agree with something, I said so.

This bill is now at third reading. Yesterday we voted on the last amendments at report stage. The Bloc Quebecois presented four amendments. They were not even examined. They were rejected out of hand. It was time to do something about this issue, but the government should act in the respect of people, of the public.

That is not what the government is doing. This bill will be studied by the other place, and I hope that they will be able to do what the Liberal government has not done.

Such a bill, such an issue, must not be dealt with casually, as we have seen. I was not present for all of the hearings, but my colleague, the hon. member for Sherbrooke, was. He told me “It makes no sense. There are so many things going on; the witnesses that are appearing are only talking about the Seaborn report. They thought that the government wanted to implement the recommendations”.

Do we bring in witnesses in as a formality, or are we there to listen to them? Most of them are experts. Sometimes, regular citizens can become experts. They came in good faith to warn this government about the problems with this bill. They came and said “We are warning you; listen to us, introduce amendments. It needs to be done properly”.

But the Liberals did what they did to the opposition: they turned a deaf ear. They turned deaf and blind. As far as they were concerned, it was no, no, no. Their answers were dictated by the minister's instructions and the overall bill.

I am very disappointed for the people of the riding of Jonquière, which I represent, and I am also very disappointed for future generations. I have grandchildren, two boys. My daughter has given me two beautiful grandsons aged 5 and 3. Tomorrow, I do not want to tell my grandsons “You know, grandma could have done something. She tried, but nobody on the other side listened to her”.

I am very disappointed because they are the ones who will have to live with the results of our lack of action on December 5, 2001. We will have failed to convince the government to change Bill C-27 into the bill that we wanted at the outset.

This is a sad situation. The holiday season is upon us, and in 20 days it will be Christmas. This is a time of celebration, a time for enjoyment, for spending good times together, but I will be using that opportunity to tell my constituents “We did everything we could to get the government to listen to us, but to no avail. It is doing as it pleases, and it is not even interested in consulting you”.

I think that this government sees itself as the one possessing the truth. Of all those listening to us today, there is not one who possesses the whole truth. When one has an idea in mind, one must take into consideration the opinion of those who want to caution us, who tell us “Take care, there, don't go in that direction. I have proof of my stand, just listen to me and I will tell you why”. We need to listen to others if we are members of parliament. Otherwise, we would be better off elsewhere.

I believe that all members of this House, be they Liberals or opposition members, should have that ability to listen to others, yet in the standing committee on natural resources, I could see that the government MPs lacked that ability.

This has been a great disappointment to me, because today we are forced to acknowledge that we could have done something worthwhile, something to advance a cause that involves everyone. Last week, my colleague from Sherbrooke told me that there were people in one region discussing bringing in waste from the United States to bury in their area. One might also bring up a matter that we settled last year.

Do you remember this, Madam Speaker? At the time, you were not the acting Speaker. They wanted to bury waste from the Toronto area in northern Ontario, near the Témiscamingue area in Quebec.

With the help of the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, we set up emergency hearings. The Minister of the Environment arranged for an environmental assessment to be done. People came to tell us that there were many irritants and they were right, so the government said that this would not be done and it was not.

All the witnesses who appeared before the committee at various times told us the same thing. The city of Toronto was forced to back down.

The government could have done the same thing with Bill C-27. It could have said “Yes, there are irritants”. We never said that this bill was all bad. We said that there were things that were not what we were looking for and that the bill needed to be improved.

We are calling for consultation, management and a report to be tabled in the House. The other day, we suggested the services of the Auditor General of Canada. Yesterday she told us about what was going on with employment insurance and about the $75 that the government handed out before last year's election to individuals below a certain income. She told us about that. The auditor general is credible.

The government members refused. They said that they want an independent auditor appointed by the governor in council.

Our request for clarity demanded an answer, ut we can see beyond any doubt, and it is a shame to have to say this, and I am sad to do so, that there is no clarity. Clarity is not a predominant characteristic of the Liberal government in this issue. I am sorry to see this because I am certain that there are members across the way who would have liked more clarity too, when they realize how little there is, and that they too hear from their constituents on the whole topic of waste. They are going to start looking at the bill and I hope that they will ask themselves what questions their constituents will have for them when they see this.

We must not disappoint the people who elect us. We must ensure that issues as important as nuclear waste management are not relegated to the back burner, as a third, fourth, or fifth priority.

This is a top priority. We have done much harm to our planet in the past. Today it suffers from what we humans have inflicted upon it. With this bill, we had an opportunity to lessen the burden that we have placed on the planet.

However, we did not. The government turned a deaf ear and did not innovate. We hear the word innovate a lot. Today we need to innovate more and more. Since the events of September 11, the world has changed, I believe.

Every weekend I meet a great number of constituents who always tell me, “You know, Jocelyne, we have changed since September 11. Our values are different. We see things more clearly now and we to want to change the little day to day things that we overlooked”.

This bill was an opportunity to change the little day to day things and allow us to finally keep an open mind and consider the winds of change on this very complex and difficult issue.

Today the Bloc Quebecois can say that it is against this bill and that it will continue to oppose it. I hope that my speech will spark something in the members opposite. That is my wish.

Privilege

[The Speaker]

I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Port Moody--Coquitlam--Port Coquitlam on Thursday, November 22, regarding Bill C-42, an act to amend certain acts of Canada, and to enact measures for implementing the biological and toxin weapons convention in order to enhance public safety, introduced earlier that day.

First, I would like to thank the hon. member for raising this matter as well as the hon. government House leader for his contribution.

In his submission, the hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam alleges that the contents of Bill C-42 were leaked to the media before it was introduced at first reading in the House. As proof, he mentioned two newspaper articles, which appeared on Thursday, November 22, 2001, the first in the Globe and Mail and the second in the National Post .

I have examined the articles in question and can find no clear evidence that a leak actually occurred. The articles make reference to a number of sources, all unnamed, and include both speculations about the bill as well as assertions about its contents. Nowhere is any source, governmental or non-governmental, quoted with respect to the confidential contents of the bill.

On reading the text of these articles it is not possible for the Chair to distinguish between information, if any, that was directly communicated to the authors and material that is merely speculation or inference on the part of the authors for there seems to be no lack of ancillary material on which to base such speculations.

The hon. government House leader, for instance, noted that the very title of the bill, namely an act to amend certain acts of Canada, and to enact measures for implementing the biological and toxin weapons convention in order to enhance public safety, provides an important clue.

Intrepid journalists ready to invest the time to research the text of the biological and toxin weapons convention itself, not to mention the ongoing work of the international conference now reviewing its provisions, can expect to reap tangible benefits since Bill C-42 is the enabling legislation for Canada's ratification of that convention.

The mere fact that those speculations or inferences accord with the contents of the bill does not by itself constitute a prima facie breach of privilege.

Under these circumstances it is by no means evident to the Chair, based on the evidence submitted by the hon. member, that any actual disclosure of Bill C-42 has taken place prior to its introduction in the House. In the absence of such evidence, the Chair can find no basis for a question of privilege. I thank all hon. members for their attention to this matter.

Public Works and Government Services

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is steadily building a secret government beyond the control of parliament. Bill C-42 lets ministers make secret regulations that limit the rights of citizens while bypassing parliament. The auditor general today reports that the notorious Downsview Park Inc. earned $19 million selling a federal asset without the knowledge or approval of parliament.

Will the Prime Minister take a tiny step away from secrecy and make the Downsview corporation subject to the same access to information laws that apply to most other crown corporations?

Immigration

[Inky Mark, Canadian Alliance, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, today the auditor general in her report to parliament repeats what has been said for many years about immigration, that is, the government's lack of attention to the report.

Section 12.70 states:

In 1997 we recommended that Citizenship and Immigration Canada review the mechanisms used in applying the eligibility criteria set out in the Immigration Act.

For undocumented claims, the report states that:

Under Bill C-11, the decision on eligibility must be made within three working days--

Why does Bill C-42 propose changes to the 72 hour requirement?

The auditor general is having a difficult time assessing this recommendation of Bill C-11.

The auditor general also found that the safe third country provision made in the 1997 report was totally ignored by the government. So much for listening to the Auditor General of Canada.

Public Safety Act

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me say that I will be using up all the time left for this sitting of the House.

I would like to continue the debate on the all important Bill C-42. It is very important because it received such broad media coverage last week. All that happened because, basically, the Minister of Transport introduced a bill that was a hidden attack against our democracy and our freedoms. Those were very important points that were raised, in particular by Bloc Quebecois members.

This is all the more serious because Bill C-42, which is now before the House, was not even on the order of business for today. We were supposed to be discussing Bill C-37, Bill C-39 and Motion No. 20 under government orders, as well as Bill S-31.

Why then is Bill C-42 before the House today, a situation which probably forced the minister to quickly react and address the House, as I had to do because I am the Bloc Quebecois critic? It happened very simply because the House did not have enough work for today.

It is a cause for concern. It comes after the difficulties encountered by the Liberal government last week. The week started very badly with the introduction of Bill C-42, which was almost a knee-jerk reaction, if I may use the expression, to the airline safety bill introduced two weeks earlier by the U.S. congress.

The Canadian government, because it was not ready to introduce a bill on airline safety, decided to introduce a bill on public safety.

Again, I have trouble understanding the minister when he says that these powers already exist. He is not the only one who said that in the House. The Prime Minister said so too, as so did the Minister of National Defence.

If they already exist, why insult us by introducing a bill that is a serious threat to democracy and the rights and freedoms of Quebecers and Canadians? The reason is very simple: these powers simply did not exist.

The government is fine tuning these powers and introducing new ones. It is coming here with emergency directives, with military zones, with a lot of provisions which the Minister of Transport has taken great care today not to elaborate on.

He has elaborated today, of course, on the changes to the Aeronautics Act, for which he is responsible as a minister. He has admitted once again, quite candidly, that there was a lot of opposition to the changes that were put in Bill C-42, because the opposition thought there was not very much in this bill.

Of course he has told us that there still is no money. Funds will be announced during the budget speech that the Minister of Finance will give on December 10.

Thus, we will have fine tuning of the whole air safety policy and we will have the funds. The minister said that he was still negotiating with the Minister of Finance to determine the amounts that would be allocated to air safety.

Concerning this bill, the Bloc Quebecois asked the Prime Minister the following question “What could you not do on September 11 that such a bill would allow you to do?” The Prime Minister responded by letting the Minister of Transport answer and, once again, he could not say today what he could not do.

He elaborated earlier on what he did exactly on September 11, with the existing laws, and for which new laws to intervene were never asked for.

The attacks coming from the opposition were, among other things, about representations, statements and actions of the Minister of Health, who decided to award a contract to a company, namely Apotex, which did not have the rights. It was Bayer that had the rights on the anthrax vaccine.

Of course, these are government mistakes. Today, in response to a question from the leader of the Progressive Conservative/Democratic Representative Coalition, the Minister of Health seemed once again to laugh at the fact that this bill would give him new powers.

I can perhaps try to explain, to help Quebecers listening to us to better understand the new powers that would be given to the health minister. It is quite simple:

11.1 (1) The Minister may make an interim order that contains any provision that may be contained in a regulation made under section 11 if the Minister believes that immediate action is required to deal with a significant risk, direct or indirect, to health or safety.

Hence, by way of an interim order, a new power has been given to the health minister. In the case of the anthrax vaccine or the protective inoculation, this power would have entailed the minister to give his officials the power to buy the necessary vaccine and to compel every Canadian to receive it.

These new dispositions all give more powers and this is what makes it so serious. It is not done simply by giving the minister more powers, because we do not simply give him more powers, we tell him that now “An interim order is exempt from the application of sections 3, 5 and 11 of the Statutory Instruments Act”.

This means that the minister could adopt interim orders for all sorts of emergency purposes and be exempt from the application of sections of the Statutory Instruments Act, and I am not talking about any old section, either. I will read a part of section 3, which would no longer apply to the Minister of Health in the case of interim orders. This section states:

1. (1) Subject to any regulations made pursuant to paragraph 20(a), where a regulation-making authority proposes to make a regulation, it shall cause to be forwarded to the Clerk of the Privy Council three copies of the proposed regulation in both official languages.

Now, it would no longer be necessary to send them in both official languages. I read on:

(2) On receipt by the Clerk of the Privy Council of copies of a proposed regulation pursuant to subsection (1), the Clerk of the Privy Council, in consultation with the Deputy Minister of Justice, shall examine the proposed regulation to ensure that

(a) it is authorized by the statute pursuant to which it is to be made;

(b) it does not constitute an unusual or unexpected use of the authority pursuant to which it is to be made;

(c) it does not trespass unduly on existing rights and freedoms and is not, in any case, inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms—

If the Minister of Health is empowered to make interim orders, to purchase vaccines, of whatever kind, exempt from the application of the provisions of enabling legislation, he could very well acquire unacceptable vaccines, vaccines whose patents are held elsewhere. This is no problem. He could then require a group to be vaccinated without complying with the charter of rights and freedoms. All this is effective for 23 days. After 23 days, the regulation must be published.

If this does not infringe on individual rights and freedoms, I do not know what they can be thinking. If the minister had all these powers, why write in black and white in a bill that now he will be able to make interim orders without the House or the usual regulatory procedure requiring him to meet the test of the charter of rights and freedoms?

This is the type of regulation now proposed by the Minister of Transport. These regulations were of course tabled like any major bill. The minister said it earlier: This is the second phase in the fight against terrorism. He said it solemnly, in camera.

The transport officials who tabled the draft regulations in camera, and I was there, were not able to explain the content of the regulations. They were accompanied by officials from DND, who were there to explain what was happening with national defence, and from each of the other departments. There were 10 officials representing the various departments to explain to us the part of the bill involving their department.

So if the official representing the Department of Transport is unable to answer questions on a bill sponsored by his minister, I can understand why the minister himself could not answer questions in the House on this bill. This is the harsh reality.

While we are confronted with emergency situations, situations as serious as the events of September 11, officials from several departments are trying to fulfill their dreams. It is unbelievable that a minister would agree to defend a measure as important as this one. This is a measure that amends 19 acts, of which officials do not understand the operation.

Therefore, it was really easy for the Bloc Quebecois to attack this bill relentlessly in the House. I am proud and I am confident that my leader has made important gains for Quebec society by finding in the legislation all these irritants for democracy and for the respect of Quebecers' rights and freedoms. Today we thought the battle was practically over.

We managed to make the government realize that the only really urgent issue was what was made into a distinct bill, Bill C-44, amending the Aeronautics Act. This was the only really urgent matter in the 98 pages of Bill C-42. We needed just one page, because we have to meet the American requirements concerning the information airlines have to provide on passengers. These are American requirements.

Concerning Bill C-44, we have been told regulations would be provided, and we were supposed to get further explanations. The House leader of the Liberal Party told us, when he answered a question by the Bloc Quebecois, that he would table the regulation amendments or the draft of these amendments so we could study them in committee. We were supposed to get them last Friday, but we are still waiting. Tomorrow, the committee will examine Bill C-44, but with this Liberal government I am sure we will still not have these amendments.

This concludes this part of my remarks. I hope I get another chance to take the floor, because I intend to use all the time I am allotted to explain the defects in Bill C-42.

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

moved that Bill C-42, an act to amend certain acts of Canada, and to enact measures for implementing the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, in order to enhance public safety, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-42, the public safety act.

This bill proposes to amend 19 acts of parliament and to enact one new one. The changes and measures proposed will promote and protect public safety and strengthen the government's ability to improve the safety of Canadians.

The bill is another important step in the government's fight against terrorism. It has been shaped by bringing forward amendments identified during normal reviews of several of the 19 existing acts, as is the case with the Aeronautics Act which is under my purview, and by reviewing all these acts in light of their prevention and response provisions at a time of increased security concerns.

The basic objective of the bill is to ensure that the Government of Canada has the proper authority to establish and maintain an appropriate security program for the protection of all Canadians.

One of the important characteristics of any terrorist attack is that its true scope is not immediately perceptible.

It will be recalled that right after the first plane struck the World Trade Center people were wondering how such an accident could have happened. Only after the second strike did it become obvious that this was a terrorist attack.

After reports about a third and a fourth plane, people did not know whether the attack was over or whether others would follow. We did not know at that time whether there were plans to hijack Canadian planes or whether a plane arriving from Europe might have been hijacked.

As a result, we made the immediate decision using our powers under the Aeronautics Act to ground all Canadian aircraft and to direct all aircraft that were in the air to certain designated airports.

Although this was a terrorist attack on a country other than Canada, our government needed the ability to respond immediately and fortunately that authority was present. We have to consider that a major attack on Canada could have occurred at that time and could still occur. We also have to consider that such an attack could involve trucks, ships or aircraft. It could also employ diverse substances, including biological agents such as anthrax or chemical weapons.

We live in a generally peaceful country built on trust and our acts and regulations dealing with safety are more than adequate to deal with regular and ongoing activity or prevent and deal with accidents. However the attacks on September 11 have made it clear that we must also be prepared to respond to fully formed problems such as attacks on our water supply, food supply or our infrastructure.

Of the acts to be amended under Bill C-42, 10 provide the ability to bring into play the authority of the federal government in the event that it is required in order to protect public safety or security. I would like to emphasize that these authorities already exist. The objective of the amendments proposed is to provide the ability for the immediate use of these authorities when required.

I would like to take a few minutes to speak about the amendments to the Aeronautics Act for which I am responsible as Minister of Transport. The amendments to the act are designed to clarify and update existing aviation security authorities. They are also designed to strengthen some of the authorities to maximize the effectiveness of the aviation security system and enhance the ability of the Government of Canada to provide a safe and secure environment for aviation.

In addition, the amendments set out some of the specific matters that could be dealt with in regulations, including those concerning restricted areas at airports, screening of people entering restricted areas and the security requirements for the design or construction of aircraft, airports and other aviation facilities.

The amendments would also update or expand certain authorities to make regulations, including establishing restricted areas within aircraft and airports, as well as other aviation facilities, requiring more security clearances, for example, for crop duster pilots, and screening of people entering restricted areas, even those with security clearance and a restricted area access pass.

The amendments discourage unruly passengers by making it an offence to engage in any behaviour that endangers the safety or security of flights or persons on board by interfering with crew members or persons following crew members' instructions. Such an offence would be punishable, on summary conviction, with a maximum of 18 months in prison and a $25,000 fine or, on indictment, with a maximum of five years in prison and a $100,000 fine. These should be an effective deterrent for activity which is more commonly known as air rage.

The amendments also address the issue of passenger data that may be required both at home and abroad in the interest of transportation security.

Prior to September 11, it had been assumed that persons intending to hijack a plane would take on board with them traditional weapons. September 11 made it apparent that this was not necessarily the case. Airport screening to protect aircraft can no longer be restricted to searching for or attempting to detect traditional weapons such as guns or knives. The passengers themselves must be considered more closely to determine if any of them are likely to pose a threat, which is to say, passengers who are known or suspected terrorists need to be identified.

This raises the potential conflict between the security demands for information on people being screened on the one hand and the protection of an individual's right to privacy on the other. We must find the proper balance in this regard and I believe we have done so with the amendments.

The amendment necessary to allow Canadian air carriers to provide very specific and limited information to American authorities, as the House is aware, was split last week into a new bill, Bill C-44, which went through second reading on Friday.

Within Canada, the amendments would provide the authority to request information from airlines or a passenger reservation system on a specific person. As well, under exceptional circumstances, such as when a credible threat has been identified, Bill C-42 sets out provisions whereby we would require Canadian carriers to provide us with additional information.

To be clear, the proposed amendments would allow the Government of Canada to acquire basic information on specific individuals, known or suspected terrorists, and only in the interest of transportation security. This information would include name, date of birth, nationality, gender and, if it exists, passport number.

The amendments would also allow the government to respond to a credible threat. For example, let us suppose a woman reports to the police that her husband belongs to a terrorist cell that intends to hijack a Toronto-Winnipeg flight later that day. In this instance the balance between information requirements and the right to privacy shifts dramatically. The Government of Canada would want to be able to obtain all possible information available on all people on that flight, including how they paid for their tickets and where they are seated.

Thus, the specific proposal in the amendments would require an airline or an airline reservation system operator to: immediately provide to Transport Canada basic information on a specific individual; retain on a watch list the name of that individual for no more than 30 days; immediately provide to Transport Canada basic information on that individual should that person's name be added to the data held by the airline or added to a passenger reservation system; and, immediately provide to Transport Canada all information on all passengers and crew of a flight subject to an immediate credible threat.

The amendment would also make it possible for the government to enact regulations designating to which other federal ministers, agencies or individuals the information obtained by the minister may be disclosed, along with procedures for its use, communication and destruction.

It is essential that screening apply to people as well as their luggage and carry-on baggage. The proposed amendments would allow for the capture of just enough of the data held by airlines and passenger reservation systems to provide for increased passenger safety.

My colleagues in question period, certainly those from the Alliance, talked of their disappointment about what is in the bill. The amendments to the Aeronautics Act as we brought them forward were primarily, as I have said before, the result of ongoing review and stakeholder consultation. However some of the provisions were specific to the events of September 11, and that is why we brought them forward in this package.

I have acknowledged that since September 11 our priority as a government has been to make sure that security screening, security checks, on board safety and airport safety have not only been rigorously enforced according to the normal standards but that new standards have been introduced which are also rigorously enforced. Anyone in the country who has flown by plane in the last few weeks knows full well what the government has done and how the added security has helped Canadians and assured them they should travel.

That is being borne out by opinion surveys. Canadians feel much more confident about travelling by air in Canada than in the United States. It is not just that the attacks happened in the United States. Notwithstanding what the opposition says, the public understands that the Government of Canada has strict rules, that we have amended our rules and that we will be bringing in more rules to effect airline and airport safety.

I have been much more preoccupied with getting the rules in place and getting them enforced than with the discharging of security measures. A lot has been made of the fact that the way people are currently screened at airports, which is the status quo with the airlines, is unsatisfactory. I have said it is unsatisfactory. I think there is a general consensus. We have been looking at various options but the options will be costly. They come at a price, and the price must be paid by either the Canadian taxpayer or the users of air services.

That is a subject of considerable debate. The financial implications of all the security measures that will be coming forward on the airline and airport side alone, notwithstanding the things we are looking at with respect to our land borders, the sea and all other measures, are expensive. They have obvious budgetary implications and are the subject of discussions among my colleagues, the Minister of Finance and me.

It is not just a question of agreeing on what must be done. We must cost it out. We must be prudent. We must know we are responsible for taxpayer money. We want to know what burden the fiscal framework is expected to take. That is why the matters have been under deliberation. Shortly we will be able to conclude the deliberations and let people know how we propose to pay for all the measures and how they are to be implemented.

I have focused only on the measures that affect my portfolio directly. There have been a lot of questions in question period to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Health, the Deputy Prime Minister and others about the various bills that would be amended and the new bill that is to be included in Bill C-42.

Much has been made of the fact that somehow the measures are draconian and not needed. However I would remind members in the House that they were the ones who after September 11 demanded that the government deal with the security threat and ensure that all legislation be looked at, amendments be brought in, procedures be tightened up and new regulations be brought into force.

That work has been ongoing. Bill C-36 has been under debate. Amendments have been made to Bill C-36 to reflect the deliberations of hon. members in committee. That is what parliament is all about. In the same way, worthy consideration will be given to amendments that come forward in the course of both Bill C-44 and Bill C-42.

Although I am speaking about Bill C-42, members can forgive me if I say a word about Bill C-44 since it was introduced at the same time. The House has agreed that we split it off for obvious reasons.

We need to get Bill C-44 through the House quickly. We have had co-operation from hon. members because under the laws that have been changed in the United States there will be no flexibility past a point in mid-January with respect to the providing of information from airline manifests.

This will not impose an infringement on our sovereignty. Any country has the right to determine who goes into it. The Americans want to know who is coming in and under what auspices. They have every right to know that. Canada was one of the few countries in the world that had lately been prohibited from providing that information. That is why we need to get that bill forward quickly.

The privacy commissioner has made some statements. On Friday he called me out of courtesy before releasing his letter and told me what he would say. I understand his concerns. We are willing to see if his concerns can be met by way of amendment or by way of undertakings we receive from the American government.

That is why it is important to get the bills into committee so that true deliberation and fine analysis of the various clauses can take place. It is important that we deal with the broad brushes of strategy and principle, but in committee we can look at the various clauses and decide if amendments are required.

In the deliberations on Bill C-36 the Minister of Justice showed she was flexible. The Prime Minister and others have said that. We respect the parliamentary tradition, the role of parliament as a deliberative Chamber and the role of the committees in analyzing legislation. That is why I welcome the sending of these bills to committee.

Concerns have been raised by some about the alleged inordinate power temporary regulatory orders would give to ministers. I did not hear members of the opposition on September 12, September 13 or when parliament opened on September 17 talk about ministers not having power. The opposition wanted ministers to have the power to act.

We did act. The government acted under the Aeronautics Act to close the skies. It was not done by order in council. It was not done by wide consultation. It is a power that was there under the Aeronautics Act, and it was invoked. Within the hour North American airspace was closed.

The very flexibility that I as Minister of Transport had in the hours following the attacks on the World Trade Center is what is needed by ministers to deal with a threat.

Let us take as an example the Minister of Health and the scare we have had with anthrax. If a regulation needs to be promulgated members want the Minister of Health to deal with the anthrax threat immediately. He can worry about the technicalities of the order in council, the gazetting and all the processes to be followed, but not immediately. Members want the authority exercised and exercised immediately. That is why the temporary powers requested in the bill are absolutely necessary to deal with situations of crisis.

Some members have said we have the Emergencies Act and can use its emergency powers. Despite its title the Emergencies Act is somewhat more rigorous and the processes under it are much more lengthy. Under the statute there must be an order in council process and wide consultation. We may be arguing hours versus days or a week or two under one act versus the other.

The example I gave about the powers the Minister of Transport already has under the Aeronautics Act demonstrated that in certain circumstances we need keen powers and regulations to protect the public interest and public safety. Bill C-42 is called the public safety act.

Hon. members are right to say these powers must not be abused and there must be additional safeguards. I will be interested to hear at committee what hon. members have by way of safeguards. We have the gazetting procedure. We have the ultimate judicial review process. Hon. members will say that we need to bring these regulations to parliament for approval, but what happens if parliament is not sitting? Parliament was not sitting on September 11. Under the Emergencies Act, how could I have consulted with parliament when it had not even been called?

Are we going to allow planes, perhaps with terrorists on board, to fly into Canada or into the U.S. without taking immediate action because parliament, in its wisdom, needs to sit down and debate the matter, even if it is for two hours, three hours or two days?

Sometimes governments have to act. Sometimes they have to take their responsibility and be accountable to the public. I believe this government has acted, has taken its responsibility and it is accountable to the public and to parliament, which is why we are debating these measures here. We will go to committee with an open mind to work in the best interests, not of the government or the government party or one party or another, but in the interest of public safety for all Canadians.

Income Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2001

[Val Meredith, Canadian Alliance, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill S-31, an act to implement agreements, conventions and protocols concluded between Canada and Slovenia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Peru, Senegal, the Czech Republic, the Slovak Republic and Germany for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income, at third reading.

Unlike my colleague I am not just concerned about the fact that a bill on taxation was introduced to the House through the Senate and all the implications that puts in place. The question is, why would a bill of this nature take precedence over other important issues regarding Canada's economy and the government's lack of policy concerning the same? Why does the government refuse to address issues like the Canadian dollar and the fact that it has lost 20% of its value against the U.S. dollar since the Liberal government was elected in 1993?

Since 35% of everything that Canadians consume originates from the United States, a 20% reduction in the Canadian dollar's relative value represents a massive drop in the standard of living of all Canadians. The dollar is not just doing badly compared to the American dollar. It has lost 11% against the Mexican peso, 4% against the British pound, 3% against the Russian ruble and 6% against the Argentine peso.

The Governor of the Bank of Canada said he was very concerned about the Canadian dollar. The chief economist of the Toronto-Dominion Bank said:

At certain levels of the dollar you can argue that a depreciation is a value to the economy, but I think that went out the window a long time ago and any further slide is not helping.

Why is the government not doing something about the value of the Canadian dollar? Canada's productivity growth over the past two decades has been slower than that of every other G-7 country. We have one of the worst growth rates in the OECD. Over the last four years productivity in Canada has grown at a cumulative rate of 4.2% per year whereas in the United States it was 11%.

Why is the government not realizing that high taxes are not a good thing? Canadians had the second highest corporate tax rate in the OECD before the October 2000 mini budget. It is expected that following the budget, which is coming before the House hopefully on Monday, Canada will continue to have the second highest tax rate in the OECD.

Why has the government not dealt with the fiscal policy issues? The coalition supports the finance committee's recommendations to eliminate capital taxes. The coalition supports the committee's recommendations to eliminate the remaining capital gains tax for gifts of listed securities. The coalition recommends that lowering the corporate tax rate to the OECD average would be a positive thing.

It would be remiss of me not to talk about border issues. One-third of our GDP is a direct result of exports to the United States. Some 70% of exports move by truck, the mode of transportation that has been adversely affected by the congestion at the borders. Much of that trade is just in time delivery which is very important to Canadian commerce.

The coalition recommended to the government that it work with the United States to promote public policy that would move commerce across the border in a timely manner and at the same time deal with the security issues that are of such concern to the United States.

The coalition recommends that the Canadian government create a new ministry of public protection and border management to take responsibility for Canada's customs, immigration, law enforcement and intelligence agencies. It recommends the creation of a binational border management agency that would jointly monitor the entry and exit of goods and persons into and out of the United States and that would continue monitoring goods and persons throughout the North American continent.

The border management agency could expedite pre cleared individuals and commodities across the border and not tie up the border. It would allow agencies to concentrate on the 5% or 10% that might be high risk to both Canada and the United States, and potentially Mexico in the future.

An entity that is missing in this and most government legislation is parliamentary oversight. There must be a parliamentary oversight committee formed to oversee not only the border management committee and public protection ministry but also the anti-terrorism legislation the government has put before the House: Bill C-36, Bill C-42, Bill C-44; and who knows what other legislation the government may try to put through the House without a parliamentary oversight.

We would like to know why the regulatory reforms with which the government should be dealing are not being dealt with. There should be a red tape budget that would afford parliament the opportunity to debate the regulatory burden on both Canadian businesses and individuals.

A regulatory budget would hold the government accountable for the full cost of the regulations that it puts into place and would prevent the current patchwork of redundant regulations with which Canadians are faced that stifle Canadian enterprise. The use of sunset clauses can ensure that the raison d'être of a regulation is reviewed periodically to make sure that it is appropriate and relevant.

We would like to know why the government does not deal in a more structured way when it places its estimates before parliament. There should be a system wherebys a certain number of departments are selected by the opposition that would have their estimates scrutinized by parliament without a time limit. We should be forcing our ministers to defend their parliamentary estimates in the House of Commons. That would improve parliamentary scrutiny on government spending and strengthen the role of members of parliament.

We would like to know why the government has made Bill S-31 a priority. There are many other issues of importance to Canadians and the Canadian economy that the government has ignored and refuses to address. The coalition wishes the government would get on with the priorities that Canadians feel are important instead of the things it would like to shove through the House and have Canadians think that it is doing the government's business.

Public Security Act

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Exactly, Mr. Speaker.

On Thursday the Minister of National Defence said that his new military security zones could include an area where meetings are held, somewhere such as Kananaskis. Does the government consider Indian reserves to be, in the language of Bill C-42, “property under the control of Her Majesty in right of Canada” in which the Minister of National Defence can unilaterally impose a military security zone? Specifically, since the road to Kananaskis goes through the Stoney Indian Reserve, is the government considering designating the Stoney reserve as a military security zone under this new power grab legislation?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, the position expressed by the member is completely absurd. He knows that in the case of the drugs, all the laws were respected and the health of Canadians was protected, which is the most important thing.

In connection with Bill C-42, the legislation merely contains provisions that are intended to ensure that in cases of emergency, the government and its ministers can react quickly.

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health has already tried to purchase untested drugs illegally from his friends at Apotex. That time, parliament was able to stop him.

Now, Bill C-42 enables that same minister to take interim measures unilaterally, secretly and without any explanation. He could even do the same thing again with Apotex without referring to parliament or having to provide any public justification.

How can the government justify this abuse of power, which enables a minister to do what parliament prevented him from doing two months before?

An act to amend certain acts and instruments and to repeal the Fisheries Prices Support Act

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

My hon. colleague from Manitoba mentions Bill C-36. Of course the whole country if not the whole world is now aware that the government brought forward the dictatorial power it has to enact closure and time allocation and crush any debate.

I pointed out yesterday that the coalition had amendments that did not get one minute of debate on the floor of the Chamber before those amendments were put to a vote. That was at report stage.

Then at third reading of that legislation, both the New Democratic Party and the coalition did not get the opportunity to put up even one speaker before the government shut down debate. It basically eliminated the opportunity for Canadians to have their elected representatives bring forward concerns about the legislation. That is completely unacceptable.

There is more than a touch of irony that today, a couple of days later, we are debating Bill C-43 which makes, as the hon. House leader quite rightly identified, technical or minor amendments to a myriad of other acts.

I was going to end my comments at this point but one of the government members took it upon himself to say that it was so unacceptable that the coalition, or at least the majority of our members, voted for Bill C-36. That bears a bit of explanation and I thank the hon. member for his heckling from across the way to remind me of that.

On controversial issues like that, clearly there are parts of an omnibus bill that we believe are going in the right direction. This is true for so much of the legislation that comes before the House. Then there are other parts that we are vehemently opposed to and have very serious concerns about. Members, and I would suggest not just opposition members but indeed members of the governing party as well, are constantly caught in a quandary of whether to support the legislation as brought forward by the government or whether to vote against it. Oftentimes there is some good and some bad in the same legislation and we have to weigh the pros and cons.

Unfortunately, what inevitably happens, and the same would be true of a bill like the one we are debating today, Bill C-43, is that there may indeed be some good and some bad in a bill like this. It is an omnibus bill. It is making, as I said, a whole range of amendments, termed as minor amendments by the government, to a whole range of laws and statutes. The reality is that often times we are caught where we have to make a judgment call as to whether there is some good, some bad and which way to go on a particular way of legislation.

The only way to get around that is what the government is at least at this point willing to do with Bill C-42, the next omnibus so-called anti-terrorism bill. The government brought it forward. Then, within a day, it was before the opposition party claiming it needed to draw out one or several clauses and get them through the House, such as the clause dealing with airplane manifests and passenger lists, and then just let the remainder of Bill C-42 sit there for the time being and not debate it in the House. Rather it would have the House rising early, as the House leader for the opposition stated. Nine times so far in this fall session the House has adjourned early for lack of legislation put forward by the government.

This is a growing concern, I believe, not just to the opposition but indeed to a number of government backbenchers as well in the sense that the--

Aeronautics Act

[Val Meredith, Canadian Alliance, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly feel the government should be always looking at long term planning and at the implementation of plans. If the member had heard my comments, he would realize that I had indicated that Bill C-44 arises out of a very hastily put together Bill C-42 omnibus bill which, I would suggest, should probably not have seen the light of day because it would appear to have been too quickly put together without great consideration for what the ramifications might be.

I would also suggest, in response to his question, that not only did the United States react just to show the citizens that it was out there doing something but this government has done the same thing and could be accused of putting legislation on the table that has not been well thought out, its ramifications have not been well considered and it has done so just to appease Canadians that it is actually doing something.

What I suggested was that Bill C-44 probably should have been addressed long ago, a month or six weeks ago, when the Americans made it quite clear what direction they going. Why is it that this government always has to wait for the Americans to move first rather than being bold and taking steps in front of the Americans in doing what should be done for the good of all Canadians and all North Americans?

My concern is that the government does not show initiative nor a great deal of foresight or planning. It seems to be always running behind and knee-jerk reacting to things that other countries and other people do.

[Val Meredith, Canadian Alliance, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite apparent from what my colleagues have said that confusion occurs when a government uses the omnibus bill process to move legislation through the House. It is quite apparent from the comments my colleagues have made that in some of these bills there may be an aspect of things that should and can be supported. Because there is support for some of the amendments, the government also tries to put through other legislative amendments that are not acceptable and are very difficult for Canadians to support. We saw that in Bill C-36 and we see it again in Bill C-42.

The reason for the comments from my colleagues on Bill C-42 is because that is the origin of this section that has now found itself in Bill C-44. This section was originally in Bill C-42 as a measure to advance airline security and to respect the legislation that the United States government passed through its congress.

Quite frankly, it is a fairly good piece of legislation in itself in the one aspect it deals with. I think we will likely find that there is almost unanimous support for this piece of legislation.

If this was the intent by the government or if this is what was necessary in the first place, why did it dump it into an omnibus bill that brings a whole lot of other issues to the table at the same time? This bill should have been introduced by itself without being put in the omnibus bill. That omnibus bill probably should not have seen the light of day. Various sections should be brought to the House that deal specifically with the issues pertaining to defence, the health department or to transport provisions under the Aeronautics Act .

This part of the bill respects the law that the United States has put in place as a result, I would suggest, of the demand by its citizens to respond in some strong measure to answer the concern of safety and feeling secure and confident in using the airlines after September 11. Americans perhaps have more pressure than we do in Canada because they were the victims.

Yes, Canada had individuals who were killed in the towers. Yes, Canada helped the United States in responding to September 11. After visiting Washington and talking to people who lived there and worked in buildings near the Pentagon, we will probably never appreciate the damage that it did to the psyches or souls of Americans or the impact it had on their vulnerability.

Because of that, the American government had to respond in a way so that the American people could feel their government was in control and would prevent this from happening again. In response to that, the American government, the congress, the senate and the administration came up with a very concise and precise bill outlining what safety measures they were going to be taking.

One of them was the requirement for all international flights coming into the United States to provide to competent authorities passenger manifests prior to landing in the United States. That is a legitimate request. As a country, it has the right to ask for that.

Therefore, Bill C-44 was introduced by the government to respond in kind to the American legislation. This legislation will be enacted on January 18, 2002. Because of that, Bill C-44 must also come into effect prior to January 18, 2002 to be in compliance with section 117 of the U.S. aviation and transportation security act.

That is the reason the government removed this section from Bill C-42. Again, if this was timely and an important part of that legislation, then why did it not enter a separate piece of legislation in the House prior to putting Bill C-42 on the table?

The question arises as to what this manifest will contain. Why would a person be concerned about this information being made available? We heard from my colleague from the NDP of how people are concerned about the invasion of their privacy and of information they feel no one has any right to know.

We should make it clear that we are talking about the full name of passengers and crew; the date of birth; the sex; the passport number and country of issuance for each passenger, and crew if necessary; and the U.S. visa number or resident alien card number for each passenger, or crew if applicable. This information must be transmitted by the air carrier to U.S. customs in advance of the aircraft landing.

I do not know that this is really all that invasive. For the most part, this information is pretty widely known and is quite obvious in many cases. However the legislation, other than allowing the manifest to be transmitted before the landing of the aircraft, also permits the disclosure of information to other countries that the cabinet may designate by regulation.

Right now we know the Americans require this in legislation, but we are not aware, or at least I am not aware, of any other countries that might be contemplating similar legislation. I would like to have some idea, and I think Canadians would like to have some idea, of just how widely spread this kind of sharing of information will be.

Another amendment in Bill C-42 relates to changes in the Immigration Act that Canada will require air carriers bringing passengers to Canada to provide similar information by prescribed regulation to Canadian authorities. Obviously what we are doing in Bill C-44 is allowing Canada to send the manifests to the United States and other countries, when we ourselves, in Bill C-42, will be asking for the same kind of manifests to be sent to Canada from carriers bringing people into Canada. It is a quid pro quo and certainly something that is necessary after September 11.

I would like to reiterate that the Americans have reacted this way in a very strong show to their citizens that their government is in control and their government is acting in a very responsible way. Canadians have to realize that this is not new for us and that it will have very little effect, if any, for most Canadian travellers to the United States.

Eighty to ninety per cent of all airline passengers travelling to the United States go through one of seven major airports in Canada where U.S. immigration and customs services conduct pre-clearance before boarding. This pre-clearance basically gives the Americans all the information that they are requiring through legislation now. For most Canadians flying to the United States, this will not be any different than what happens now.

One thing we did hear when we were in Washington was that it had the same problem as we had in Canada where intelligence agencies did not share information with each other. Although this information will be flowing to the United States and to Canada, neither of us have a competent system to deal with that information and ensuring that all agencies, which may have an interest in certain people and threats posed by individuals, have the information in a timely manner. Something we and the Americans have to address is how to use this information, not only in an appropriate manner but in a manner that will make a real difference in the fight against terrorism.

Over a month ago, the coalition proposed a plan on public protection and border management. We put before Canadians and before the government a concept of how intelligence information could be shared, not only with our own agencies but with agencies in the United States as well. We feel this is a very practical approach, an approach that manages intelligence in an effective way, in a way that is useful and meaningful in attacking terrorism and terrorists themselves. We feel our proposal would go a long way to providing a practical application for what the Americans are asking and potentially, through Bill C-42, for what Canadians are asking.

The bottom line with Bill C-44 is that American legislation requires this change for all international flights landing in the United States. A failure to allow Canadian carriers to forward passenger manifests would prevent them from flying into the United States.

I would suggest that Canadians might perceive this legislation as a response to the American demand that Canada put it into practise. The embarrassing thing with this legislation is that it would appear that the Canadian government is once again responding to something coming from the Americans rather than the Canadian government taking a leadership role and putting in place a process that would address this issue. The Canadian government should have shown leadership. It should have shown initiative. It should have stepped out in front of the pack instead of trailing along behind the pack.

I would suggest that the concept put on the table a month ago by the coalition should be given serious consideration. Information collected on airline manifests could be used in a meaningful way and put into a system where it would be dealt with in real time. This would ensure that those individuals, who threaten the security of not only the United States, but of all the free world, could be dealt with in an efficient and expedient manner.

The government will find support for this legislation. We see the need to have this legislation in place. However it is a very small step in the road that has to be travelled to make sure that intelligence information is shared by all necessary agencies and dealt with in an expedient manner to address the issue of terrorist threats.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if the member had listened carefully to my remarks, he would know that he has not at all reflected anything I said in true form. I did not suggest that the measures in Bill C-44 could be equated with the internment of Japanese Canadians, nor did I say that it is the draconian steps of the United States legislation that has led us to this point.

What I did say was that in terms of Bill C-36 and Bill C-42, which are the two umbrella pieces of legislation by the government dealing with anti-terrorism, there are broad sweeping provisions that go beyond the question of ensuring security for Canadians and invade the privacy of people in this country.

I refer the member to the statement made by a United Church minister here in Ottawa who said, “I deplore terrorist acts whoever commits them, but I have deep concerns about Bill C-36 as a response. When we react from emotional fear, we are very likely to make choices which violate human rights. I cite the October crisis, the internment of Japanese Canadians during World War II, the McCarthy era in the U.S.A. as examples of what can happen when nations overreact xenophobically to perceived threats”.

That is what I was attempting to suggest to the House. I would hope the member would not misinterpret my comments.

Finally, let me just use the words of one Canadian individual who has written all of us on the issues of Bill C-36 and Bill C-42. She put it so well and so poetically. She said, “If we believe in beauty and compassion and the possibility that good will overcome evil, then we are taking steps in the wrong direction. We are on the brink of selling out almost every important and essential component necessary to realizing our common goals of life, liberty, empowerment of the individual, celebration, joy and creativity”. I think that says it all.

Bill C-42

[Chuck Strahl, Canadian Alliance, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have no problem with ministers acting to protect Canadians. We just want parliament to have a role in knowing what is going on.

Yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister claimed that Canadians need not worry, that ministerial decisions taken under Bill C-42 were subject to judicial review. That is simply untrue. There is no judicial review in the bill. There is no oversight committee and there is no role for parliament.

Bill C-42 gives absolute power to the ministers and we all know what absolute power does. Why would the government once again bring forward legislation that compromises the rights and freedoms of Canadians and belittles the role of parliament?

[Chuck Strahl, Canadian Alliance, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, under Bill C-42 the government is dramatically changing the rules of our democratic society. Ministers will have the power to act unilaterally without checks or balances.

The only other time this kind of power can be exercised is under the Emergencies Act. Even then, quite properly, the decision to use that power has to come back before parliament for debate and approval. If coming before parliament is good enough for the Emergencies Act, why is it not good enough for Bill C-42?

Aeronautics Act

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-44 on behalf of the NDP caucus.

The bill is clearly part of a much broader agenda with respect to phase two of the government's determination to pursue broad, wide sweeping and very comprehensive legislation. On the one hand the bill appears to deal with issues of security, issues which we all share, but on the other hand very much impedes civil liberties and human rights.

We will be consistent on the issue. We have said from day one with respect to Bill C-36 and now with respect to Bill C-42 that the government has crossed the line between balancing those two concerns, between standing up for measures that actually address in real terms the threat of terrorism and respecting Canada's longstanding traditions and historic developments in civil liberties and human rights.

It is good that the Minister of Transport has introduced Bill C-44. He has carved off one specific section from the massive piece of anti-terrorist legislation for our consideration today. In the process he has left us presumably some time to deliberate, to discuss with Canadians the full ramification of the provisions in Bill C-42. I hope that is the case. That was certainly our concern with respect to Bill C-36.

The minister may talk about the time given to the House to deliberate on that very massive piece of legislation which impacts on almost every aspect of our lives. The government came in with a heavy hand. It gave a window of opportunity to hear some testimony from Canadians but then without due consideration to the amendments being proposed by those organizations or by opposition members, the government proceeded as it had originally wished, with the exception of some housekeeping amendments. That is clearly unacceptable. We have said that over the last few days.

The events leading up to yesterday's developments and the commotion in the House yesterday speak to that precisely. It was a fascinating day yesterday in the House. There have been fascinating developments over the last couple of days.

The Conservatives in the House have gone through a remarkable conversion from a position of support for Bill C-36 to a position yesterday of strong opposition to Bill C-42. Many have questioned how this is possible. A Conservative member has said that it was a logical thing to do. That is what we are searching for; we are trying to find some logic in the Conservative position.

At least in the case of the Bloc members who voted for Bill C-36 at second reading, they wanted to reserve judgment at third reading based on the testimony and concerns raised. Bloc members listened and acted on those concerns and ended up opposing Bill C-36.

In the case of the Conservatives, my goodness, they spoke with such opposition to Bill C-36 and ended up supporting it at third reading. One has to wonder, as someone said to me, if they woke up the morning after having slept with the Liberals feeling guilty and had to do a quick change in position based on those feelings of guilt. I hope instead that it is a case of the Conservatives seeing the light of day and realizing just what kind of pervasive stranglehold the government has over our society as a result of Bill C-36 and with respect to Bill C-42.

It is clearly an issue today of trying to find a balance between civil liberties and dealing with serious threats. No one here is suggesting that the threat to our security as a result of the September 11 terrorist attacks is not real nor that action should not be taken to address those threats. That is exactly what we have been trying to do in the course of debate, to find that balance.

We have been trying to persuade the Minister of Justice and now the Minister of Transport to find that balance and truly represent the concerns of Canadians. It is the kind of balance we hope will be achieved in the final analysis at least with respect to Bill C-42. It may be too late for Bill C-36 although it is still in the Senate and who knows what can happen. It is certainly not too late for Bill C-42. We now have a much greater consolidation of concern on the part of the opposition, with the exception of Alliance members who feel that even these major intrusive measures are wimpy. It is hard to imagine that kind of viewpoint is alive and well in this Chamber but it is.

This is probably the most draconian piece of legislation in the history of the country and the Alliance finds it wimpy. The Alliance claims it does not go far enough. It wants to see tougher measures. It wants to take away all our rights and liberties in the interests of terrorism. That is certainly a marginal position. It is not even on the table. The work of the majority of parliamentarians with cool heads and rational judgment is to find the common ground to balance security with civil liberties.

Bill C-44 represents one small part of the wide sweeping, major anti-terrorist legislation, Bill C-42. We in the NDP certainly support the legislation going to committee. It should be studied and dealt with expeditiously. However we have some concerns. There are real questions about what Bill C-44 means in terms of privacy in Canada and in terms of protecting individual rights and freedoms.

It is very disconcerting not to have a clear understanding from the Minister of Transport as to what it means for Canada to provide passenger lists for every airline crossing into American airspace. What does it mean to collect all that information and where does it go? What does it mean when the government says it will release the passenger lists and crew data to a foreign government where such information is required by the laws of the country? What laws and according to what standards, values and principles? When do we draw the line between providing necessary information to ensure the threat of security is addressed and allowing foreign invasion of individual rights to privacy?

There is no question that some action has to be taken in terms of security at our airports. Our caucus has been very clear about wanting beefed up security at our airports. We have raised numerous concerns about the chaos in the airline industry. We would like to see some real leadership from the government about the crisis at Air Canada, about the collapse of Canada 3000, about the turmoil and uncertainty facing air travellers and the chaos at the airports themselves.

It would be good to have a comprehensive piece of legislation from the minister dealing with the crisis in the airline industry and a comprehensive plan on airline and airport security. This kind of patchwork, ad hoc response is not that helpful in dealing with the bigger picture. It is not apparent to us how this kind of initiative will fundamentally address the root causes of terrorism.

Given the incidents over the last few days and weeks, we are concerned about racial profiling. We are obviously concerned about what happens to passenger lists, given the incident recently reported about a member of our Sikh community travelling by air and being pulled off the plane because of the way he looked. This was done clearly not taking into account cultural mannerisms and not being sensitive to the diversity of this nation.

What happens if an airline en route from Winnipeg to Ottawa travelling through American airspace has a couple of Sikh names or Arab sounding names on that list? Are these people singled out? Given past experience are we looking at people being identified and under suspicion because of how they look, the colour of their skin, what they are wearing, what their body language is and what their facial expressions are?

We have legitimate reasons to be concerned given what has happened in the last few weeks. The number of people who are being detained as an ethnic group and questioned on the basis of their ethnic origin raises suspicion. Suspicion is also raised when people are being detained without access to legal assistance and an understanding of why they are being detained without evidence of any wrongdoing. All that gives us great concern.

It makes us wonder how the government will go down this path and ensure that our diversity is respected and individual rights and freedoms are preserved in Canada if it cannot handle the situations we have had over the last few weeks.

We will support Bill C-44 going to committee. We want to hear answers to many questions and raise concerns. NDP members want to give a cautionary note to the government about Bill C-42. This is broad, sweeping legislation that tips the balance in favour of security over civil liberties and human rights.

We are asking the government why it is trampling on rights and freedoms in order to achieve greater security in this country. I do not think the government has an answer for that. In many ways it has leapt into this area with the determination to have a quick response without thinking through the final impact of its decisions.

The government has to sit back, look at the situation and start to act in the interests of Canadian traditions and values. It must know full well that we have the means, the ability and the tools to attempt to offer security to all Canadians without taking away basic rights and freedoms.

We look forward to having the legislation debated in committee. My party will be raising many concerns at that point. The New Democratic Party hopes the government makes a commitment in this process to allow Canadians to be heard on Bill C-42. All members should work together to achieve the balance between protecting people against the threat of terrorism and standing up and protecting the rights and freedoms of Canadians.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-44.

First, I would like to try to explain how the Liberal federal government has been having a bad week since last Thursday. At the same time, it is important for Quebec and Canadian people to understand how we can go from the 98 page bill tabled last week to the one page bill tabled in a rush today under a new number.

It is important to understand that because there has been numerous discussions on Bill C-36, the Anti-terrorism Act, and on Bill C-42, the Public Safety Act.

Right from the start, we noticed that Bill C-42 on public safety contained no aviation security provision. No investment, no measure was announced in it. That was our first finding. Besides, people had great expectations that the bill sponsored by the transport minister could reassure them with regard to airport security and aviation safety, but it failed to do so. The minister candidly admitted to it for that matter. Budget measures will re required, which the finance minister will hopefully put forward on December 10 next.

Why did he introduce this voluminous 98 page Bill C-42? As the transport minister told us earlier, it is because the U.S. government had tabled a legislation on aviation safety the day before. The Canadian government, which was working on a public safety legislation, tabled it on the next day.

At the outset, as I already told Quebecers who are listening, there was nothing new announced about airline security. There were, however, major announcements the new powers which the government wanted through interim orders, without the authorization of the House. The words interim order were invented to allow the health, agriculture, environment and other ministers to make from time to time emergency orders, which would have the force of regulations and which would be implemented immediately, without going through the regular review procedure, especially the security procedure enacted by the government through the Privy Council to determine whether those orders are consistent with the Canadian Charters of Rights and Freedoms. This was the first main thing we saw.

Second, there was the issue of military security zones, about which the Minister of National Defence gave wonderful speeches this week.

The Bloc Quebecois, as an opposition party should, did its homework, went over the bill and asked questions in the House directly to the Prime Minister. First, we asked a very simple question to the Prime Minister “What would Bill C-42 allow you to do that you did not do in September?” Of course, the Prime Minister let the Minister of Transport answer the question. They were not able to tell us what they could not have done in September, why we should have this bill and how it would allow us to respond in a better way. The minister gave a very evasive answer.

There was obviously no answer to the question, because intervention occurred under the current regulation. Since the public sought some reassurance, the government used legislation under its jurisdiction. Ministers used the powers they had. Apart from a few mistakes, by the Health Minister, for instance, the government managed rather well. It did not, however, need new legislation to deal with such tragic events as those of September 11.

We have to understand that for many years ministers, departments and officials have had expectations, and would have liked more power. Bill C-42 was probably a good opportunity for the ministers to include all the traditional demands of their departments and officials so that they can have control without the members of parliament being involved and without any parliamentary process, something which is too cumbersome for some. For others, of course, this process is necessary.

This is what happened with Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism bill. The government proudly said “See, we have introduced a bill that has gone through all the legislative stages. Members of parliament have been able to debate the bill at second reading, in committee, and at third reading. They had the opportunity to move amendments.”

The legislative process has been so well followed that, last Wednesday, the government gagged the opposition. The government prevented us from going on with the debate to better explain to the citizens the content of Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism bill. We were gagged.

So, on Wednesday, the debate ended because of the Liberals' decision to issue a gag order. Bill C-36 was passed in virtually the same form as it was introduced, despite the fact that the Bloc Quebecois alone had moved 66 amendments, of which only one was retained. That amendment was to include the word cemetery in the list of objects which could be considered as being part of hate crimes. We have to hand it to the government for having included the word cemetery.

However, there were some very important issues, and some very important discussions. There were more than 80 witnesses heard by the committee who asked, almost unanimously, that some significant restrictions be added. Among the restrictions was the sunset clause, proposed by the Bloc Quebecois, to limit the bill in time to a three year period, given that the bill creates new provisions and new limits to personal freedom. This did not happen. We wanted an annual review. The government did not retain this idea.

Once again, the government used the legislative process. For Bill C-36, the government used the process to say, “listen, the committee worked on the bill and you had your chance to be heard. In the end, we will not retain anything”. This is clearly this government's motto: zip, we will not retain anything. This is how the Liberal government operates.

It is especially difficult when, in the same week, there is debate on bills as important as Bill C-42, which introduces interim orders. It grants exceptional powers to ministers, to individuals. Take the example military security zones. It provides the Minister of National Defence with the power to establish, on his own authority, military security zones, without the provincial attorneys general even requesting it, which was the case until now.

Quebecers who are listening should know that, thanks to the good work of the Bloc Quebecois, and the other members of the opposition in the House, Bill C-42 will not be passed before the holidays. This is why we are debating Bill C-44.

They have taken the only urgent measure, the only truly urgent measure, from Bill C-42, and that is obviously what the minister has introduced today. An independent bill has been created, Bill C-44, an act to amend the Aeronautics Act, in order to comply with U.S. requirements for air carriers taking passengers to the United States or through U.S. airspace.

This is indeed the only measure that was really necessary and urgent in Bill C-42, as I said at the beginning of my speech. How, within one week, can a bill of 98 pages be introduced? Finally, and everyone agrees on this, the only true emergency measure is the single page representing clause 4.83. That is the change that has been made and I will address that shortly.

So that is what the Liberal government's difficult week has been all about. It has once again tried to pull a fast one on all Quebecers, all Canadians, in the guise of a concern for national security.

It is sad because, when it comes down to the bottom line, if Bill C-42 had been passed this week, the terrorists would have succeeded in what they were trying to do from the start, which is to directly attack the very foundations of our liberal and democratic society.

This is the worst of it. Rather than discussing real security problems, announcing measures, announcing budgets, the government has introduced a bill. The Minister of Transport could very well have caused a real hullabaloo in the House by pressuring the Minister of Finance, by saying “This is what we need to have enhanced security, and this is what it will cost, according to a number of people who came before us in committee. This is what the people of Quebec and of Canada need”.

That is not what was done. A bill was introduced. It was just smoke and mirrors to distract Quebecers and Canadians, and all because last Wednesday the U.S. government introduced a real air security bill.

This is why today, before Bill C-44, we are all to understand that it was an emergency measure. This is why the Bloc Quebecois told the House on Tuesday of its clear desire to debate a bill that gave Canadians some security. This measure alone, which was contained in C-42 and which we are debating today, is intended to harmonize Canadian legislation with American legislation that came into effect on November 19 in the United States.

I will read the American text, so it will be clear what the Canadian legislation should include:

Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act [American], each air carrier and foreign air carrier operating a passenger flight in foreign air transportation to the United States shall provide to the Commissioner of Customs by electronic transmission a passenger and crew manifest... to provide the information required by the preceding sentence.

(a) the full name of each passenger and crew member;

(b) the date of birth and citizenship of each passenger and crew member;

(c) the sex of each passenger and crew member;

(d) the passport number and country of issuance for each passenger and crew member, if required for travel;

(e) The United States visa number or resident alien card number of each passenger and crew member, as applicable;

(f) Such other information as the Under Secretary, in consultation with the Commissioner of Customs, determines is reasonably necessary to ensure aviation safety.

This is therefore the request the Americans are making of all foreign countries whose airlines are passing through the United States either carrying passengers to the United States or passing over American airspace.

Of course, since our American friends are asking, it is important that we, as responsible neighbours, comply with their requirements.

As for the bill before us, the Bloc Quebecois will support this measure to standardize the information to be provided on passengers. However, we have to be careful. The American legislation, which I have read, is clear, but the bill introduced in the House today is not so clear.

I will quote clause 4.83 of the bill, for the benefit of Quebecers. In any case, there are only four paragraphs in the bill.

4.83 (1) Despite section 5 of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, to the extent that that section relates to obligations set out in Schedule 1 to that Act ... an operator of an aircraft departing from Canada or of a Canadian aircraft departing from any place outside Canada may, in accordance with the regulations, provide to a competent authority in a foreign state any information that is in its control relating to persons on board or expected to be on board the aircraft and that is required by the laws of the foreign state.

So, this first paragraph says that we will provide the information requested by foreign states. However, the second paragraph provides that:

(2) The Governor in Council may make regulations generally for carrying out the purposes of this section, including regulations:

(a) respecting the type or classes of information that may be provided; or

(b) specifying the foreign states to which information may be provided.

So, regulations will have to be made and this is why the Bloc Quebecois asked the Leader of the Government in the House yesterday if, considering that the clause before us is not clear as to the information to be provided, we could have the regulations which, among other things, will govern the type or classes of information that may be provided.

We had indeed been told that today we would be provided with a draft or at least with the speech notes on the regulations. This is what the minister seems to have promised for noon today. We could certainly consider those notes or the first draft of the regulations the government intends to propose and pass. We hope to have the opportunity to discuss the matter before the House adjourns for the Christmas recess.

It should not be forgotten that under the U.S. order that I was reading earlier, Canada has to adopt some measures before January 18, 2002 and it must be able to produce the regulations and the list of information that the Americans might demand regarding the carriers transporting passengers to the United States or flying over U.S. air space.

I am repeating it again to all Quebecers and Canadians listening to us, we started off last week with a 98 page bill from which we extracted the only emergency measure contained in Bill C-42, that is the measure regarding the information on passengers that we will have to submit if we want our airline companies to be authorized to continue to do business in the United States, and we drafted a separate bill.

It was a very difficult week for the federal Liberal government because, once again, it tried to present a distorted picture of Quebecers and Canadians. We are much more on the ball than people in many other countries around the world.

The Liberals are lucky enough to have opposition parties that know how to read legislation and guess at the intentions of ministers, who too often take advantage of crisis situations, such as the events of September 11, to try to make some old dreams come true. For the Minister of National Defence, the dream is to have his army operate anywhere in Canada, and particularly in Quebec, even if the governor general or the provinces have not asked that the army be called in.

It is hard for opposition parties in this House to put up with situations like what happened last week, when we were gagged and unable to debate Bill C-36. We are prevented from speaking. The following day, the proceedings of this House were interrupted for two hours because there was nothing to debate. This is what the Canadian parliament has come to. Canadians and Quebecers who are listening must realize this.

As things stand now, the federal Liberal government is too strong and believes it can do as it pleases. Once again, I trust Quebecers and Canadians. They see what is happening, just as we do, and they will increasingly trust the Bloc Quebecois and the opposition parties to defend their interests.

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in favour of Bill C-44 which is what we are discussing today. In the aftermath of September 11 there has been a blur of legislative activity on both sides of the 49th parallel. In the United States a mere 10 days after the horrendous attacks Senator Ernest Fritz Hollings of South Carolina introduced Bill S. 1447, the aviation and transportation security act.

In one bold act congress sought to restore the confidence of the American flying public. Passengers, baggage, mail and cargo were to be screened. In-flight crew were to be mandated new training to deal with air rage or terrorist crisis management. Air marshals were to appear on U.S. airliners. A complex passenger profiling system was to be enhanced.

Despite an anthrax attack on Capitol Hill which shut down congressional offices, consensus was quickly reached to prove that while America led an impressive fight against terrorism abroad the fight at home would be fought with even more strength.

The bill moved through both houses of congress faster than a rumour through the press corps. President Bush signed the bill into law a mere eight weeks after its introduction.

In Canada the blur of activity was akin to the way tires spin during the first winter snowstorm. There was a lot of noise and a touch of smoke but little action. The government was about as agile and surefooted as a newborn calf. Unlike the calf, however, the Prime Minister and transport minister are seasoned politicians with nearly 50 years of parliamentary experience between them. The lack of leadership would have been funny if it were not so dangerous and destructive to the air industry.

The Standing Committee on Transport and Government Operations was promptly mandated to look into aviation security but the government quickly put forward what it saw as more urgent matters. The Civil Aviation Tribunal needed to be extended to cover mariners. Air Canada's 15% share limit needed to be raised so people who owned less than 10% of its shares could somehow be encouraged to buy more. The Warsaw convention of 1929 needed to be amended for the third millennium. All these were important priorities but they were not priorities at all for the air industry or Canadians.

The standing committee was paying attention to the matter of aviation security. I will not omit that. However while witnesses from Air Canada, the pilots association and CUPE were advocating air marshals and other security measures the government was desperately trying to be seen to be acting although it was in no way sure what it wanted to achieve or how.

On the eve of the standing committee's scheduled November 26 to November 27 trip to Washington, D.C., the rumour mill began to swirl with promises of action. On November 20 at about 5.25 in the evening the government House leader sought unanimous consent to suspend the standing orders to introduce a government bill at 2 o'clock the next afternoon.

The bill, an act to amend certain acts of Canada, and to enact measures for implementing the biological and toxin weapons convention, in order to enhance public safety, would be complex and a briefing to staff would be offered.

Two months had passed since Senator Hollings introduced the aviation and transportation security act. There was now a flicker of hope that our government would react and do something.

At 2 p.m. on November 21 the promised bill was nowhere in sight. Last minute problems delayed its introduction. The bill, Bill C-42, was introduced the next day on November 22. It contained some 19 parts dealing with everything from money laundering to the implementation of a 1977 treaty on biotoxins. A miniature section on aviation security was thrown in for good measure and optics.

With the same deft touch which marked the bill's introduction, this past Wednesday at 3.05 p.m., within a week of Bill C-42's first reading in the House, the government House leader was again on his feet to state that unanimous consent had been obtained to delete section 4.83 in clause 5 from Bill C-42 and introduce a new bill under the guise of Bill C-44 introducing that section immediately, and that the new bill be ordered for consideration at second reading for today, Friday, November 30, less than two sittings days later.

Yesterday the House ran out of things to say and there were calls to adjourn early. On the one hand the government agenda is light, but the need to add the contents of section 4.83 in clause 5 of former Bill C-42 to the Aeronautics Act is urgent. Given the recent directionless hurry up and wait antics of the government one must wonder why one clause would matter so much.

There is a saying that everything makes sense. In other words, if one examines a situation long enough, hard enough and carefully enough eventually one will understand why it is the way it is. For this reason we need to look at the clauses of Bill C-42 which deal with the type of information an airline or other transport authority may provide to authorities.

Essentially there were three clauses. First, section 4.82 of clause 5 would allow the Minister of Transport to require any air carrier to provide him with information that is in the air carrier's control concerning persons on board or expected to be on board an aircraft for any flight to which the minister believes there is a threat.

Second, section 4.83 of clause 5 would allow a Canadian airline operating an international flight to a foreign state to provide to a competent authority in that state:

--any information that is in its control relating to persons on board or expected to be on board the aircraft and that is required by the laws of the foreign state.

Third, section 69 would add a new section, 88.1, to the Immigration Act. The new section would read:

(1) A transportation company bringing persons to Canada shall, in accordance with the regulations, provide prescribed information, including documentation and reports.

The summary which accompanied Bill C-42 said the first two clauses:

--require air carriers or persons who operate aviation reservation systems to provide information to the Minister concerning specified flights or persons.

The same summary stated that the third clause:

--requires transportation companies bringing persons to Canada to provide prescribed information, which will enhance the Department's ability to perform border checks and execute arrest warrants.

Sections 4.82 and 4.83 of clause 5 had a different purpose than section 69 so it is perhaps not a complete surprise that they address different types of information. However it may come as a surprise to some members of the House that airlines maintain two different types of files on their passengers.

First, there is the passenger name record or PNR. This is the file the airline creates when it reserves a flight for a passenger. It contains information such as the passenger's name, address, phone number and form of payment. It also contains reservation information regarding boarding city, destination, connections, flight numbers, dates, stops and seat assignment. Based on this information the manifest is prepared for each flight showing who is sitting where. At present the information is routinely handed over to authorities when there is an airline accident.

Second, there is the APIS or advance passenger information system. It includes five different fields: passenger name and date of birth, citizenship or nationality, document issuing country, gender and passport number or document number. Other than the passenger's name this information is not normally collected by the airlines. Unless passports are machine readable much of the information must be entered manually.

For this reason airlines only collect the information when they must provide it to immigration authorities. Currently the United States requires this type of information for U.S. bound Asian passengers transiting through Vancouver under the Canada-U.S. memorandum of understanding which allows such passengers to go to U.S. customs without first passing through Canada customs.

It is my understanding that sections 4.82 and 4.83 of clause 5 of Bill C-42 would have required the airlines to give PNR information to the Minister of Transport and section 69 would have required them to give APIS information to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

Let us contrast this to the U.S. legislation. The new U.S. aviation and transportation security act mandates the administrator of the federal aviation administration to require air carriers to expand the application of the current computer assisted passenger pre-screening system, CAPPS, to all passengers regardless of baggage. Passengers selected under the CAPPS system are subject to additional security measures including checks of persons and carry-on baggage before boarding.

Both PNR and APIS information is sent electronically to the U.S. customs service supercomputer in Newington, Virginia, where the CAPPS system enables the passenger profiling that keeps America's skies safe.

The U.S. is actively fighting a war on terrorism. It is walking the talk, unlike the Government of Canada which is not. Thus it is instructional to read section 115 of America's aviation and transportation security act. It states:

(1) IN GENERAL--Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, each air carrier and foreign air carrier operating a passenger flight in foreign air transportation to the United States shall provide to the Commissioner of Customs by electronic transmission a passenger and crew manifest containing the information specified in paragraph (2). Carriers may use the advanced passenger information system [APIS]--

(2) INFORMATION--A passenger and crew manifest for a flight required under paragraph (1) shall contain the following information:

(A) The full name of each passenger and crew member.

(B) The date of birth and citizenship of each passenger and crew member.

(C) The sex of each passenger and crew member.

(D) The passport number and country of issuance of each passenger and crew member if required for travel.

(E) The United States visa number or resident alien card number of each passenger and crew member, as applicable.

(F) Such other information as the Under Secretary, in consultation with the Commissioner of Customs, determines is reasonably necessary to ensure aviation safety.

(3) PASSENGER NAME RECORDS--The carriers shall make passenger name record information available to the Customs Service upon request.

Subsection 4.83(1) of clause 5 of Bill C-42 would amend the Aeronautics Act by adding this to it:

Despite section 5 of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, to the extent that that section relates to obligations set out in Schedule 1 to that Act relating to the disclosure of information, an operator of an aircraft departing from Canada or of a Canadian aircraft departing from any place outside Canada may, in accordance with the regulations, provide to a competent authority in a foreign state any information that is in its control relating to persons on board or expected to be on board the aircraft and that is required by the laws of the foreign state.

If we boil this down to its essentials it means that an operator of an aircraft departing from Canada or a Canadian aircraft departing from any place outside Canada may provide to a competent authority any information that is required by the laws of the foreign state relating to persons on board.

For example, the words “operator of an aircraft departing from Canada” would allow Air Canada to give the U.S. customs service the information that section 115 of the U.S. aviation and transportation security act would mandate with respect to passengers on its transborder routes.

Similarly the words “Canadian aircraft departing from any place outside Canada” would permit Air Canada to give the same information with respect to its flights from Australia, New Zealand and Honolulu en route to Canada.

Members will remember that I said everything makes sense. I was trying to figure out why after several aborted attempts by the government to improve aviation security in Canada Bill C-44 was being rushed through with such haste. I had a look at section 115 of the U.S. aviation and transportation security act and I think I found my answer.

There are two concepts in it that are important. First, it would apply to both U.S. and foreign carriers flying to the United States from other countries. It would therefore apply to Air Canada and charter flights operated by Air Transat, WestJet and Skyservice.

Second, section 115 of the U.S. aviation and transportation security act would come into force not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of the act which was signed by President Bush on November 19.

That means it would come into force January 18, 2002, before the House of Commons has returned from Christmas break. If Canadian carriers are to be able to comply with the U.S. legislation the House must add the text of section 4.83 of clause 5 of Bill C-42 to the Aeronautics Act before it rises in the third week of December.

We are discussing the clause today not because of any desire of the government to make our skies safer or show leadership through decisive action. We are discussing it because the U.S. acted and Canada's airlines told the government if it could not lead it should at least follow the U.S. and do so quickly.

Canadians can thank the U.S. congress for the bill. To the extent that it would keep our skies safer, credit should not go to the government but to the air industry for leaning on the government to follow the United States.

In the meantime Canadians are left waiting and wondering when a hint of leadership about the broader questions of airport and airline security may tumble out of the government and cabinet and into legislation. It has been 13 weeks since the terrorist attacks and no serious legislative action has yet been taken by the government.

It makes one wonder. Our airport security system has been clearly documented to be inadequate in terms of security. New security regimes are being put in place in countless other countries. There are public demands for a new security system. Air carriers are demanding new management of airports and airline security. Pilots and flight crews are demanding new security regimes. There has been a massive drop in consumer confidence in flying, not to mention terrorist attacks and a war.

If this environment is not enough to inspire action from the government one must wonder if it will ever get off its backside and show leadership on the issue of airline and airport security. I am not holding my breath.

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

moved that Bill C-44, an act to amend the Aeronautics Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-44, amendments to the Aeronautics Act, concerning the provision of information to foreign states. This is another important step in the government's fight against terrorism.

Before September 11, it was assumed that individuals who were planning to hijack a plane would bring traditional weapons with them. Since September 11, it is obvious that this is absolutely not the case.

As members well know, last week I introduced Bill C-42, the Public Safety Act. This bill has been shaped by bringing forward amendments identified during normal reviews of several of the 19 existing acts, including the Aeronautics Act.

All the reviews dealt specifically with the prevention and response provisions in a time of increased security concerns.

The basic objective of Bill C-44 is to ensure the Government of Canada has the proper authority to establish and maintain an appropriate security program for the protection of Canadians.

In Bill C-44, which was created by removing a small section from Bill C-42, the government proposes to amend the Aeronautics Act. I want to thank the members of the opposition parties at this time for agreeing to extract the proposed amendment of section 4.83 to the Aeronautics Act with respect to the provision of information and putting it in its own bill, standing in its own right so that we could have early passage. I think that by doing this we will be able to enhance the ability of Canadian air carriers to work with their international partners, in particular our American friends to the south, to take other positive steps toward deterring and detecting terrorists.

The particular amendment contained in C-44 addresses the provision of passenger and crew member data to our international partners in the interest of transportation security. I believe the proposed amendment allows for the capture of just enough of the data held by Canadian carriers to provide for increased passenger safety through the intelligent use of modern information technology.

On November 19, the day before we put Bill C-42 on the notice paper, the president of the United States signed into law a new act which requires, among other things, that advance passenger information be provided in respect of all flights entering the United States.

I want to stress that the information the Americans have asked all airlines to automatically provide is the same as that which is now provided by individual passengers to U.S. customs officials when they land in the United States today.

Indeed, the majority of Canadians entering the United States do so through U.S. pre-clearance facilities at major airports and so are already providing this information to American authorities prior to the departure of their flight from Canada.

The information to be automatically provided is quite basic: the name of the passenger, the gender, birthdate, citizenship, passport number and visa number if applicable with country of issuance. On a person by person basis, however, additional information could be requested.

As I said, the American legislation requiring this information was signed by Mr. Bush on November 19, the day before my colleague, the government House leader, advised the House that we would be bringing forward an omnibus bill on public safety and the bill was put on the notice paper.

MPs were briefed on Thursday, November 22, and the bill was introduced at 10 a.m. that day. Since that time, we have been informed by our friends in the United States that they have indicated a desire to implement the data provisions of their new act quickly. Currently they will deal with the situation either by receiving the information or by carrying out extensive hand screening of carry on and checked baggage upon arrival of flights into the United States, which we can appreciate would be very time consuming.

By advancing, as Bill C-44, this portion of our public safety act, Bill C-42, which deals with provision of passenger information to foreign states, we will be able to prepare regulations that will allow Canadian air carriers to provide approved information to approved countries.

In answer to a question from the hon. member for Roberval the other day in question period, I assure him that we would have available draft regulations today for hon. members to look at because it is a very crucial issue. I regret the fact that I was in Vancouver until late last night and I only just signed off on them. They are now in the process of final preparation and we hope to give them to the House leader for distribution within the next hour or two. I hope hon. members will take that as a sign of good faith on the part of the government that we want to work with all members to ensure that the information that is to be provided is both appropriate and conforms with our privacy legislation and the expectations of Canadians that private information pertaining to them and members of their families be only made available to other governments in the most extreme of circumstances. Of course the circumstances surrounding the events of September 11 are well known.

The fact is that Canada is among a handful of countries that were legally impeded from making this information available. Therefore I hope that Canadians do not think that somehow we are doing something that is inappropriate or out of the norm. The fact is that we are really conforming to the practice of most nation states in making this information available.

I should state as another principle, in case any people in the country feel that somehow the U.S. is extracting some kind of a commitment or influence over our own decision making, that every country in the world has the right to know who is coming into its nation's borders and the Americans are no exception. However, certainly since September 11, they are particularly sensitive about this and they certainly have the right to this information. By swift passage of the bill, we will be able to comply with their own domestic legislation which really does not have a degree of flexibility. Should we not pass this and have it proclaimed into law by early January, then our carriers would be subject to extensive delay, and no one wants that given the state of the airline industry. No passengers want it and I certainly do not think the governments of the United States and Canada want that.

I hope members will send the bill to committee where there will be a thoughtful discussion. The government certainly remains very flexible on dealing with all the various concerns that may be raised, especially those dealing with privacy.

Privilege

[John Reynolds, Canadian Alliance, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question of privilege cannot be taken seriously for two reasons.

First, everything the Leader of the Opposition said came from a public meeting of the standing committee on November 22, including the motion to report to the House that a breach of privilege had not occurred. I invite the Speaker to review the proceedings from November 22 and compare them to the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition. Any mention of the report by the Leader of the Opposition was in the context of a request. Again, if you review the leader's request and the report, you will see that they do not match.

Second, the member's question of privilege is out of order because the proper procedure to raise a question of privilege involving a committee is to bring the matter before the standing committee. If the standing committee concludes that a breach has occurred, it could report the breach to the House. I refer the hon. member to page 128 of Marleau and Montpetit:

Speakers have consistently ruled that, except in the most extreme situations, they will only hear questions of privilege arising from committee proceedings upon presentation of a report from the committee which directly deals with the matter and not as a question of privilege raised by an individual Member.

I bring your attention to the fact that the hon. member was in the House affairs committee earlier this day and did not raise the matter whatsoever. The hon. member does not understand the parliamentary procedure and definitely does not understand privilege. It is evident today in the manner in which he raises the issue and by his behaviour at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs when dealing with the question of privilege regarding the premature disclosure of the contents of Bill C-36.

During the public proceedings of the committee the hon. member, as the Prime Minister's parliamentary secretary, led his Liberal members to shut down the opposition, gag the privy council and sweep the matter under the carpet. His members made the lamest excuses to discontinue the study such as it costs too much to investigate the matter, the committee has gone far enough and it is too difficult a task.

If the hon. member wants to talk about contempt he should look no further than at his behaviour and efforts today. He should take note of another aspect of parliamentary privilege. Page 26 of Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada declares:

“One of the first and greatest of its privileges is free speech and one of the advantages of legislative bodies is the right of exposing and denouncing abuses by means of free speech”.

If any privilege is under siege today it is the right of a member to speak freely in the House and expose and denounce the abuses of the government. The premature disclosure of the contents of Bill C-36 is one example. The lack of action to deal with the matter is yet another. The government use of closure on Bill C-36 is yet another example.

The member's attempt to question the right of the Leader of the Opposition to speak freely in the House is conclusive evidence that the government's contentious behaviour regarding the proceedings on Bill C-36 is pathological. I ask the member and the House to consider the report in question and the Deloitte & Touche findings which my leader referred to. The report stated at page 11:

The disquieting aspect, however, is that a small portion of the article contains or alludes to information, which, at the time prior to the tabling of the bill itself, was classified secret and was subject to protection as a confidence of cabinet.

In addition, my leader made reference to the fact that it was disclosed to the committee that the PCO had the Deloitte & Touche report edited prior to its delivery to the committee. The opposition smelled a rat and moved to use the authority of the committee to obtain a copy of the unedited report. However the member, probably acting on the instructions of the PMO, led his Liberal majority once again to vote the motion down.

All this took place at a public meeting. I invite the Speaker and the public to examine those minutes, not just to clear the air but to expose the disrespectful and contemptuous actions and behaviour of the Liberal government in this cover-up.

It is no wonder that the contents of Bill C-42 were also leaked to the media prior to being tabled in the House. Why should any government official be deterred from leaking information to the media ahead of parliament when the majority in control of the House is too weak-kneed and complacent to take any corrective action to avoid it? There is contempt here today, but you will not find it on this side of the House. You should look to your right.

Immigration

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, nothing the minister of immigration says or does could match the flip-flops in the hon. member's question. The measure with respect to Bill C-11 and Bill C-42 was not to fix Bill C-42. It was to advance the bringing into application some of the most effective and meaningful parts of Bill C-42.

If the hon. member were serious about protecting the security of Canadians and their rights, he would be supporting the bill instead of coming up with his ridiculous question.

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. This fall the immigration minister initially said she needed Bill C-11 to speed up the process and fix the system. Then she flip-flopped by contradicting herself and said she already had the existing tools to detain where there was any security risk. Now she claims we need Bill C-42 to fix the mistakes of Bill C-11.

Given her acrobatics as a serial flip-flop artist, does the minister want to give us her preview of what next week's position will be and, moreover, will she just admit that Bill C-11 was a very bad bill from the get-go?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will get his answer by looking at himself in the mirror. He is the one who tried to slow down Bill C-11 and we are the ones who are speeding it up by putting the key clauses in Bill C-42. He has things totally backwards. No wonder he is hidden in the corner down there.

[Inky Mark, Canadian Alliance, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no truth whatsoever to that statement.

The minister said of her much touted Bill C-11 “...we have streamlined procedures because we know that it does take too long”.

What happened to change the minister's mind as we see in Bill C-42? She was the one who insisted on the faster procedures. What happened to change her mind?

[Inky Mark, Canadian Alliance, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, nine days ago the minister of immigration said “Under the new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, we have done everything...to try to make” refugee processing “as fast as possible...”.

Bill C-42 introduced last week would see her department revert to the much slower Immigration Act of 1976.

How does the minister of immigration explain this 180° turnaround on a faster and more efficient system?

Public Safety Act

[Chuck Strahl, Canadian Alliance, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, no one believes that.

Bill C-42 will give ministers the power to implement security measures unilaterally and in secret. They do not even have to get approval from the cabinet for 90 days and the powers last for one full year. There is no parliamentary review of the powers. There is no system of parliamentary checks and balances. There is no citizens overview. There is no way to stop ministerial abuse of these incredible powers.

This is an unnecessary power grab by the government. How can the government ensure that Canadians' rights are protected when those rights are held in the hands of a single minister?

[Chuck Strahl, Canadian Alliance, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are allowed to make our representations in committee; it is just that we know the government will ignore every representation.

Bill C-42 is moving us in the direction of the old War Measures Act. That is back to a time when ministers unilaterally made decisions affecting the fundamental rights of Canadians. They did it without parliamentary review or oversight. The War Measures Act was criticized quite properly for the virtually unlimited power it conferred upon cabinet. It had to be repealed and it was repealed.

Why then is the government once again concentrating power in the cabinet and bypassing parliament and the rights of Canadian citizens?

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on Monday I asked the Minister of Justice a question about Bill C-42 and mentioned Kananaskis and she sought to reassure me. She said that there was no hidden agenda, and I guess she was right. That which may have been hidden has now been revealed by the Minister of National Defence, that Kananaskis is in fact a possible target of the powers that we find within Bill C-42.

I ask the Minister of Justice, is she not concerned that the reassurances she gave me on Monday have now been contradicted by the Minister of National Defence?

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, no one here is naive. Parliament passes legislation. What is written has force of law, not what the minister thinks of it. That is the fact of the matter.

Will the minister recognize that the major difference between the current situation and that of Bill C-42 is that, at the moment, the armed forcescan come to the help of the police, while under Bill C-42 they would take control of a designated zone for the period they wanted, and all citizens' rights would be suspended? There is quite a difference.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence has said that the Kananaskis police could ask for help from the army if it needed it. This type of request is entirely possible in the current context, so long as it is made by provincial authorities.

Will the Minister of National Defence recognize that Bill C-42, on public safety, goes a lot further than the present legislation, much further than he wants us to know, and that he does not need to ask anyone to order a military security zone for as long as he wants, on top of that?

Bill C-42

[Val Meredith, Canadian Alliance, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have become masters of combining the good, the bad and the ugly into massive omnibus bills, forcing members to accept flawed legislation in order to pass needed amendments. They did this with Bill C-36 and they appear to pushing the boundaries even further with Bill C-42.

Tagged with the misnomer the Public Safety Act, the bill should be more accurately called the ministerial power grab act as most of the bill would give ministers broad authoritative powers with no parliamentary accountability. Bill C-42 would give the Minister of Transport and bureaucrats a blank cheque to develop an aviation security process as they see fit.

Let us contrast this to the American aviation and transportation security act where it was elected representatives and senators who determined what the security measures would be.

When will the Liberal backbenchers finally realize that all bills like Bill C-42 do is strip them of whatever little power they still have left?

Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not rise at third reading to address this important bill, as I did at the other stages.

As the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm just did so brilliantly and eloquently, I too will explain that we agree with the main purpose of this bill, which is to amend the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act. However, we are totally opposed to the three paragraphs in clause 5 that seek to give new, unrecognized powers to the RCMP.

I know that Liberal members agree with this statement. These three paragraphs in clause 5 give to the RCMP new powers that go against individual and collective rights.

The Bloc Quebecois supported the bill at second reading, but with some reservations. The research done and the evidence heard in committee convinced us that these three paragraphs should not be included in Bill C-35, because they give new powers to the RCMP, because they change the relations with other peace officers, and because they change the RCMP's relations with other provincial and municipal administrations during international conferences.

Now that Bill C-36 will become law and that Bill C-42 is before us, we are all the more concerned about these three paragraphs in Bill C-35.

Briefly, I want to say that the rest of the bill seeks to modernize the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act and that, contrary to some other parties in the House, we agree with that change. We think that the increase in multilateral international relations over the past 10 years requires us to have more flexible mechanisms to guarantee full protection to those come here to represent their country at various international conferences.

However, as all the witnesses heard by the committee said, clause 5 is unnecessary. As my colleague showed, the powers of the RCMP are already clearly established elsewhere. They are established because they were defined by the supreme court, since common law differs from civil law—but as members know this is not my forte—in that the law is the result of the whole jurisprudence.

This bill, which authorizes the RCMP to establish the perimeters that it deems reasonable, without any further guidelines, gives a new power to that police force.

The minister said “This is a codification”. I am sorry to report that witnesses said this was a new power being conferred on the RCMP. It is not to be found elsewhere. And incidentally, it is not clear whether or not the supreme court would allow the RCMP to establish perimeters based on what it believes is reasonable.

What is the impact of this power being given to the RCMP? There are consequences for the police themselves, and serious consequences when it comes to the rights of citizens. Regarding the police, witnesses who appeared before the committee testified that it was not wise to allow police—who have neither the time, nor the resources to decide at any given moment when they are on duty, what they are permitted to do based on jurisprudence—to make this type of decision, for which they will be held accountable, this decision to determine the perimeter that is required and how to then manage the fact that numerous rights are being violated.

Which rights would be violated? I am quoting from Wesley Pue, professor of law and incumbent of the Nemetz Chair in legal history at the University of British Columbia. He states:

—the right of free movement within Canada, the right of assembly, the right of free expression, the right to enjoyment of your property—because the erection of a security perimeter to limit a private area amounts to an expropriation, limited though it may be in time—the right to work, if one's business is located within the security perimeter, and limited by the existence of the perimeter, without being interrupted or harassed by the police.

We could add to that, subject to tear gas, as many people experienced during the Quebec City summit.

A security perimeter compromises all of these rights and raises a number of questions. How long before and after an event can it be erected? What kinds of solutions can be offered to those whose rights are violated? Will there be compensation or recourse for them? Will there be security passes? Who will be admitted?

I could go on for quite a while but I realize that I am running out of time. As Mr. Pue put it:

These are serious questions.

He adds:

It can of course be assumed that most RCMP agents will conduct themselves as responsible policemen. But their desire to act in a responsible way will not be enough to protect the public anymore than the imposition of an obligation that is brutal but sufficient in police terms. According to the rule of law, the law must specify as clearly as possible the conditions in which these violations of fundamental rights are foreseen.

None of this is in the bill. When we asked whether a simple amendment could be made to these three paragraphs so that they reflect citizens' rights, the answer was no. It is unacceptable that the government has continued to allow these three paragraphs to spoil the rest of the bill.

In fact, many Liberal members of the committee were extremely troubled by the evidence given and tried to get these paragraphs withdrawn. I give them credit for that. They know that this is not where we should be headed. They felt so strongly that they presented a motion in the House, part of which I will read:

Whereas the codified powers of the RCMP could affect the rights and privileges of Canadian citizens during conferences—

Just that is enough. The Liberal members submitted a motion to the committee, which adopted it unanimously. This motion said that the government should review clause 5 in order to ensure that citizens' rights and freedoms were not being violated. We know that our colleagues opposite rarely run the risk of rebelling. This is confirmation which we did not need, but of which we are proud, that we absolutely had to oppose this bill.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was not planning on speaking to Bill C-35 this morning, because the hon. member for Mercier, the Bloc critic, has worked so well on this issue that the Bloc's position has been very clear.

Given that the government has once again, through means at its disposal, prevented the opposition from doing its job on issues as important as this one, I feel compelled to rise to both speak to this bill and denounce it at the same time.

I do not completely agree, in fact, I would say that I completely disagree, with the government members who say that there is no link between bills C-35, C-36 and C-42. I think that we need to look at the big picture. It is very relevant to discuss this. It is so relevant to discuss this that the government has gagged debated on Bill C-36 in order to rush it through, so as to prevent us from having all of the legislative pieces in hand to discuss them as a whole.

There is one complaint that the Bloc Quebecois wants to make to the government regarding the September 11 events. Yes, September 11 is an extremely sad and tragic date. We all know the clichés such as “Nothing will ever be the same after September 11”. If the government had any political courage, it would have presented to us all the bills, its global vision, all at once, so that we could see how it plans to strengthen security—assuming it needs to be strengthened—and, as it says, fight terrorism.

But instead, the government is using a piecemeal approach. It resorted to closure with Bill C-36. As for Bill C-42, we learned yesterday that, because of a lack of political guts, the government has decided to split this legislation in two. As regards the very controversial part, it says “We will shove it down their throat later, when we get back from the Christmas break. Since all the other parts of the controversial bills will already have been adopted, there will only be this small part left and we will deal with it later”.

Today, in relation to Bill C-35, we heard another falsehood from members opposite. Bill C-35—unless I do not know how to read—was introduced on October 1, 2001. That was after September 11, 2001. Therefore, it reflects what the government intended to do following the September 11 events. Whether the bill was previously debated in committee or wherever, the fact remains that we have been here since November 2000 and the government had ample time to introduce this legislation, had it wanted to.

But probably because of a lack of political will, it waited for the events of September 11, and now it is in a great big hurry to see all its wildest dreams realized. It is passing bills. It is giving itself all sorts of powers to intervene, to ignore the information commissioner, a superior court judge, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is full steam ahead because of the events of September 11. The government is going to give itself so much power that, at some point, the criminal code will be affected. It will head in the direction of the Canadian Alliance, in the direction of the Canadian right, even if it means abandoning principles which have been years in the making and which are part of the criminal code. Not to worry. It is going to give itself far-reaching powers and it is going to use them.

This is absurd. That is why I wish to speak to Bill C-35. The preamble to the bill says that this will be a clearer piece of legislation and that it will also correct the deficiency in the existing statutory definition of international organization. When we examine this bill, we find that some of its provisions are even retroactive.

In Law 101, one of the most important considerations when examining a bill has to do with the retroactive effects, because this is contrary to many principles of Canadian law. There are even portions that are retroactive. On close examination, the provisions in clause 5 are absurd.

Under the guise of protecting our diplomats and people from outside the country, the government is preparing to give the police vast powers. Everything that is done currently will be set aside in order to tidy up and make things safer.

Let us have a look at clause 5. I understand that, because of the government's earlier motion, we can no longer introduce amendments at third reading. This is another way to gag the opposition. It is another way to ignore democracy in Canada.

It is rather strange that the government, which says it passes laws to protect democracy, is in fact ignoring democracy in order to get these laws passed. It is ignoring the elected representatives of the people, those with something to say to properly represent their constituents. They are ignoring all of these people in order to protect democracy, as they say. This is no doubt their democracy, their view of the things that, in terms of democracy, they want to protect.

Clause 5 of the bill amends the act by adding a new section. I think it is worth reading it. We are at third reading, and I think people have to understand what is happening. The amendment reads:

10.1(1) The Royal Canadian Mounted Police has the primary responsibility to ensure the security for the proper functioning of any intergovernmental conference in which two or more states participate, that is attended by persons granted privileges and immunities under this Act and to which an order made or continued under this Act applies.

Subclause (2) reads:

For the purpose of carrying out its responsibility under subsection (1), the Royal Canadian Mounted Police may take appropriate measures, including controlling, limiting or prohibiting access to any area to the extent and in a manner that is reasonable in the circumstances.

Subclause (3) reads:

The powers referred to in subsection (2) are set out for greater certainty and shall not be read as affecting the powers that peace officers possess at common law or by virtue of any other federal or provincial Act or regulation.

Is this clear? Has the proper legal terminology been used to give the clarity that is so greatly desired? If I answer this, I will be accused of petty politicking, and since it comes from the government, and the opposition has always criticized the government, it is certain that I will be told it is not true.

The bill was discussed in committee. People appeared before the committee, people who were not politicians, not evil separatists, as some may well think. Nor were they members of the Alliance, the NDP, the Progressive Conservatives, or anything else such as that coalition of members over there in the corner. No, they were specialists, people who had examined the issue.

What did these people have to say? They said that this amendment is either unnecessary to the extent that it purports simply to codify a status quo or, in the event that it's not unnecessary, it's woefully incomplete.

Those were the words used by a lawyer who came before the committee on November 6.

William Sloan, president of the American Association of Jurists, told the committee “You have ‘appropriate measures’ and then you have ‘to the extent and in a manner that is reasonable in the circumstances’. These are so many undefined terms; they are all terms the courts have found to be terms that confer discretion”.

He is right. When the courts interpret this, they will understand it to be a discretionary power given to the RCMP, or the Mounties, as the Prime Minister calls them. That is how they are going to interpret it.

Does giving discretionary power to police clarify the situation? I think not. The lawyers my colleague heard in committee—I was not a member but I am aware of certain facts—all said that it was not precise, not clear.

Wesley Pue, from the University of British Columbia, said that RCMP officers also need clarity. Ultimately, they are the ones who will face disciplinary measures, civil suits, investigations and possible criminal proceedings. The police deserves to have clear legislative guidelines.

This B.C. lawyer is surely not a Bloc Quebecois supporter. He said that, in order to protect police officers, the act has to be clear, because they are the ones who may be held liable by the courts if they go too far. Obviously, these officers, who deserve an appropriate framework to enforce Bill C-35, do not have the tools to interpret it correctly. They do not have legislative guidelines to do a good job. In opposing clause 5, we are also thinking about police officers.

As regards powers, if we want to change a situation, it is because there is a problem. What is the problem? How does the RCMP currently work? What are its powers? This is what we must look at if we want to properly assess clause 5 in Bill C-35.

Currently, there is no act that provides for the establishment of security zones. The RCMP's argument is based on a series of powers and judicial precedents.

So when the government tells us that we must stick to Bill C-35 and not look at other legislation, it is because it does not understand the bill. In its section on security zones, Bill C-35 refers to Bill C-42, which is now before the House. This is in the context of terrorism. We must also keep in mind the entire thrust of Bill C-36.

I can understand that it does not want us to look at all of them together, because the powers are truly excessive when lined up one beside the other. Canada is looking more and more like a police state. In any event, that seems to the objective of the Prime Minister, who claims to be the father of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. With bills like these, the child, which is the charter, must be renouncing its father right now.

So what powers does the RCMP's have right now? Does it have the legislative tools it needs? There is the Security Offences Act, section 2.3 of which provides that the RCMP has primary responsibility for ensuring the safety of individuals when, in paragraph ( b ):

the victim of the alleged offence is an internationally protected person within the meaning of section 2 of the Criminal Code

The entire first part of clause 5 of Bill C-35 is therefore unnecessary because there is already an enactment identifying very clearly those individuals the legislator wishes to protect.

Add to this the powers conferred to the RCMP under its incorporating act, which specifies, at section 18—and I will read it since clearly there are some government members who either cannot read, do not want to read, or do not take the time to read the existing legislation before wanting to amend it. Section 18 reads as follows:

It is the duty of members who are peace officers, subject to the orders of the Commissioner,

(a) to perform all duties that are assigned to peace officers in relation to the preservation of the peace, the prevention of crime and of offences against the laws of Canada and the laws in force in any province in which they may be employed, and the apprehension of criminals and offenders and others who may be lawfully taken into custody;

(b) to execute all warrants, and perform all duties and services in relation thereto, that may, under this Act or the laws of Canada or the laws in force in any province, be lawfully executed and performed by peace officers;

(c) to perform all duties that may be lawfully performed by peace officers in relation to the escort and conveyance of convicts and other persons in custody to or from any courts, places of punishment or confinement, asylums or other places; and

That is quite a few powers that the RCMP can already exercise:

(d) to perform such other duties and functions as are prescribed by the Governor in Council or the Commissioner.

This means the RCMP has the powers of peace officers, which powers are described and set out by the supreme court. It has spoken with respect to these powers over the years. It has established limits which we are looking for and which a number of international lawyers have said are absent from this legislation. The supreme court has set perfectly good guidelines for preserving the peace, preventing crime and protecting life and property.

Currently, before it intervenes in a situation, the RCMP considers the approach it will take based on existing case law in Canada. However, it takes years for case law, real case law reflecting supreme court decisions, to be incorporated in legislation—and it is worth remembering this, because the government members seem to have forgotten it as well, or actually did not know it.

There are certain principles of law that the supreme court has spent 20 or 30 years considering before establishing specific guidelines. In the matter before us this morning, the supreme court took some 20 years before clearly establishing the powers of the RCMP, what it can and cannot do, again in accordance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which was clarified over the years, obviously since its passage. Why change it?

Let us look at the most recent events, for example, the summit in Quebec City. Did it provide evidence of a glaring legislative failing? Was it shown that we failed, in legislative terms, in Canada, and thus in my beautiful Quebec? Did we not have what it takes to face the music, as they say?

I think things went well at the Quebec City summit. There were demonstrations, it is true, but this is a free and democratic country and we are proud of that fact. There have to be such things. Yes, the demonstrations got a bit out of hand. Yes, some went too far, but there is the criminal code. Those who acted improperly should be taken to court for it. For those who plotted reprehensible acts, there is a whole section on plots in the criminal code.

We must not change something that is working. This is illogical. As I have just said, the events of September 11 are being used to justify exorbitant powers. This situation, dreadful as I admit it was, is being used to change the rules of the game in a number of different Canadian statutes. What I find the most alarming is that, when amendments are made and incorporated into the criminal code or some other related piece of legislation, this is going to influence courts trying criminal cases.

As we know, one of the principles in Canada and in Upper Canada—this will be my final point—is that a law is interpreted according to its legislative text. When questions arise, however, similarities are sought, either in the criminal code or in specific statutes. When this is done and an interpretation of the changes arising out of Bills C-36, C-42 or C-35, the bill before us at the present time, is sought, individual and group rights will be restricted, which is extremely worrisome.

I will close by saying that, had clause 5 of the bill been eliminated, we would have supported it, and we have been straightforward about this. Given the government's lack of courage in the way it is proceeding, however, by putting such powers into the bill, we will be voting against it. We are proud to oppose it, in the interest of individual and group rights.

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals come up with an issue that is of great concern to Canadians, such as terrorism. Then they say they will pass a bill that will satisfy the concerns about terrorism, but they will bake in a whole lot of other things that will force members, both in the Liberal Party and opposition, to agree with it.

In order to achieve some of their goals, the Liberals take advantage of the great concern by Canadians. The goals are to concentrate power with the government. The Liberals give the power of more and more decisions to a smaller group of people on the government side and eliminate access to information and prevent members of parliament from having the information and tools to work with.

It is not only Bill C-35 and Bill C-36. It is many bills. The next one to come along will be Bill C-42 which is going to do exactly the same thing. Bill C-42 will restrict civil liberties. It will concentrate power in a very small circle on the government benches. It is exactly the same thing.

To answer the member's question, the excuse may be the concerns of Canadians but the real driving force is to concentrate power.

Anti-Terrorism Act

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-36 is most important, and to appreciate how important it is and understand the position taken by the Bloc Quebecois right for the start, a little background may be useful. Everybody knows that this bill stems from the terrorist attacks in the U.S. on September 11.

I listened to the remarks of Canadian Alliance members earlier, and I agree that they were the first to call for an anti-terrorism bill. I remember distinctly the answer of the justice minister at the time. She said “We have every tool we need in the criminal code to fight effectively against terrorism”.

Quite sincerely, I think she was right. The criminal code does provide a number of tools that can be used but criminal code provisions were not adequately enforced, as happens with many Canadian laws.

For several days, at least until the end of September or the beginning of October, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Finance—since there was the whole issue of money laundering and seizure of assets belonging to terrorists or terrorist organizations—the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the solicitor general and the Minister of National Revenue all took turns telling us that we did not need legislation to fight terrorism in Canada.

That was the position of all government members. Then, all of a sudden, on October 15, the government introduced a bill to fight terrorism. This means that either the government had been misleading the House, or that it drafted an anti-terrorism act in 15 days. Either way, this is not good. The government should tell the truth to the House and if it decides to introduce a bill like this one, it should do so after very careful consideration and after taking the time necessary to draft it.

Let us suppose that the government acted in good faith and took 15 days to draft this bill. This is very worrisome because this legislation affects many individual and collective rights. This bill was drafted quickly. Public officials told the committee that, indeed, they had drafted the bill very quickly.

What was the position of the Bloc Quebecois on Bill C-36? We initially supported it at second reading. We had read it and knew that much work would be required to make it acceptable. However we wanted to make sure that this legislation would be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights so that witnesses could be heard and the bill improved. We agreed with the principle of the bill.

What was that principle? It was to have a tool to strengthen national security, if possible, but there had to be a balance between national security and individual and collective rights. This is what happened. The bill was reviewed in committee and we heard several witnesses, including experts in this field.

If I had more time I would read what some witnesses told the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, including the Information Commissioner of Canada and the person responsible for privacy and document protection.

They told the justice minister, among other things, that she should not touch the whole part on certificates and that she should not, as she planned to do, deny individuals access to information contained in privacy files, since the enabling legislation, the current act, contains an entire section on national security.

The independent commissioners who administer the act are free to decide whether or not the documents may have an impact on national security. There is a mechanism to protect taxpayers, those who we want to protect with such legislation.

The national executive committee of the Canadian Auto Workers Union appeared before the committee. Some ministers even told the committee that a sunset clause was needed, because we were dealing with an extraordinary legislation and limits had to be set.

The president of the Quebec bar association, Francis Gervais, testified on behalf of the Barreau du Québec and told the committee that in terms of arrest without a mandate and the right to remain silent, the bill would affect the rights of some individuals arrested by the police. He said that the bill was going much too far, that the definition of terrorist activity should be tightened and that a sunset clause should be included in the bill. The Canadian Bar Association also testified before the committee.

At the same time that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights was studying this issue, the Senate of Canada, the other place, was also considering it. It tabled a report in which it tells the government that it is going too far and that it should amend the definition of terrorist activity and include in the bill a real sunset clause, which would not apply to international conventions.

Has the minister of Justice, who said she would listen to the opposition, to what experts would have to say in committee, and to the comments of the other place, really been listening? I do not believe so. I think she did whatever she wanted, or rather, if she did listen to someone, it was only to her deputy ministers. She did not listen to the people who appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Bloc Quebecois members took part in every single one of the committee meetings. We took copious notes and we listened to the witnesses. We played fair on this issue, we did not play politics, we did not keep any amendments under wraps for report stage. We put forward our 66 amendments in committee because we wanted to have the best possible legislation, which would strike a balance between national security and individual and collective rights.

As I said, we put forward 66 amendments. Every single one of them was defeated. It is not 66 amendments by the Bloc Quebecois that the members across the way rejected, but the amendments called for by witnesses. All those who appeared had very specific requests and these 66 amendments were an attempt to respond to them.

What were their concerns? The primary one, as I said before, and probably the most important, was that there should be a sunset clause in the bill. It is an exceptional bill for exceptional times. This is becoming a cliché or even a slogan, but it is true. We said and are still saying, because I believe it should have been done, that a sunset clause was needed, a real clause under which the act would cease to be in effect after three years. After three years, if the government still wanted to have these exceptional powers, it would have to start the legislative process all over again.

The minister has put forward a so-called sunset clause, but it is not a sunset clause. With a simple motion passed by the House of Commons and the Senate, this bill can be extended by as much as five years. This is not a sunset clause.

Since my allotted time is up, I conclude by saying that we, in the Bloc Quebecois, will vote against this bill at third reading. We will vote against Bill C-36.

We also say no to Bill C-42, its companion legislation. We will say no to this bill as it flies in the face of a great principle, the principle of democracy, for which we want to fight and will continue to fight here in the House of Commons.

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

They can be as upset as they want to be, but on Bill C-36, staying right on this point, it was the government House leader who stated:

I cannot say much more other than to apologize on behalf of whoever is guilty of this. I use the word guilty because that is what comes to mind, given the respect that I have for this institution. Anyone who breaches that respect is guilty of an offence in my book.

That is what the government House leader said: “Anyone who breaches that respect is guilty of an offence in my book”. The government House leader said “I believe the House leader for the Conservatives referred to this as privileged information”. Our House leader said “Actually it is more than that. It is secret in the very sense of government secrecy”.

If this is true, why did the committee conclude that no breach of privilege occurred? Why did the Liberal majority on the committee defeat two motions from the opposition that were designed to garner more information, including a motion to call as witnesses representatives of Deloitte & Touche?

When the opposition members on the committee learned that the PCO had the Deloitte & Touche report edited prior to its delivery to the committee, they moved a motion to see the unedited version and the Liberal majority defeated that motion. It is unbelievable.

I do not know how the committee will explain why it concluded that no breach of privilege had occurred when it tabled its report. If no breach had occurred, then what about the doctrine of ministerial responsibility? Who will take responsibility for the breach of secrecy? The Minister of Justice apologized for the leaking of information on Bill C-15. The government House leader has apologized to the House for the premature leaking of information on Bill C-36.

However, the contents of Bill C-42 were also leaked. Is the government expecting the House to accept another apology from another minister, if indeed that comes forward, just to move on to the next leak?

If the committee has already decided not to report that a breach of privilege has occurred, I hope the committee has the sense to address the principle of ministerial accountability.

I hope the committee follows its own advice from the Bill C-15 report, in which it concluded, then, that an apology, and this is what it said, would not be accepted if this were to happen again.

These were very disturbing elements of the whole development process of Bill C-36: leak the information ahead to get the government's own spin on it and then, when we try to respond to the spin, bring in closure and slam the door on debate. That is unacceptable.

The bill is not perfect. We have plainly identified that. I have also said throughout my speech that it is a start. As leader of the official opposition, I urge all my colleagues on this side of the House, especially those in the PC/DR coalition, to join with us and support the bill, imperfect as it is, even if we have to hold our noses at the process or at some aspects of the legislation. Canadians deserve some protection. Some is better than none.

To conclude, I would like to say again that I am disappointed in the way that the bill was conducted through the House. Canadians deserve better than this.

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

I do not often respond to ridiculous interjections but a Liberal member just said “what about forgiveness”. To forgive somebody who killed 3,000 people and send a message to him that, hey pal, it is not a problem, he will be up for parole; that is not forgiveness following that act, that is stupidity.

The bill does not make it illegal to be a member of a terrorist organization. Those who are thinking of fleeing to a country where they can still be a member of their terrorist organization though banned from doing so in other freedom-loving countries would be welcome here in Canada. That is ridiculous.

By saying “recognized terrorist organization”, I mean one that has met the burden of proof that is set out in the bill to be included in the list of entities. The minister maintains she has done this for the purpose of targeting terrorist acts and terrorist activity, but we are all aware that joining a terrorist organization has only one purpose: to participate in or to facilitate terrorist activity. That is the only reason for joining.

The minister has argued that banning membership may contravene the right to freedom of association. Surely our courts would rule that such misguided tolerance is an affront to the rule of law and abuse of the concept of freedom of association.

By far the most glaring omission of Bill C-36 is the minister's failure to deal with the issue of extradition. The Canadian Alliance long before September 11 had called for prompt extradition of foreign nationals who are charged with acts of terrorism. We will continue to ask the government to take steps to ensure that Canada no longer remains a safe haven for terrorists who come to Canada to escape the consequences of their actions in other countries. These terrorists should never be allowed to exist freely in our society and endanger Canadian citizens.

Canada quite rightly has earned a reputation of being welcoming to people from all over the world who want to come here to love and respect freedom and liberty, to pursue their hopes and dreams and see their children grow up to pursue and achieve their hopes and dreams. That is a reputation of which we are proud. But we also have a reputation of being a haven for those who do not respect freedom and liberties and for those who would tear freedom and liberty from others and those who would destroy life in the process and then would come to Canada knowing that our legislation would keep them from facing the consequences of their actions in other jurisdictions. That is ridiculous. That door must be slammed.

In addition to these shortcomings, unfortunately, the Liberal government has not yet allocated sufficient resources to the military, to police services or to the intelligence activities that we must have if we are going to properly fight terrorism.

It is no secret that the costs of fighting terrorism and organized crime are huge. These are huge costs. In a recent case that was prosecuted in Edmonton, it took $5 million to convict just three members of the Hell's Angels. Convicting terrorists will be no different. They will use every legal loophole and other means available to them to fight their convictions. The cost will be significant.

In a written brief submitted to the justice committee last spring, the Canadian Police Association wrote of the extraordinary fiscal consequences that the police face when they are investigating and prosecuting these kinds of crimes. They said that these fiscal consequences “defy any modern sense of efficiency or effectiveness”.

Although Bill C-36 will to some extent help to combat terrorism, this legislation in itself is not enough to effectively prevent terrorist activity on Canadian soil. Bill C-36 is only one piece of a very necessary puzzle. There need to be other issues addressed also, such as tightening our refugee determination system and giving powers to CSIS to operate overseas.

If we do not tighten our refugee determination system, then the genuine refugees, who should be here in this country experiencing freedom for the first time in their lives, will be jeopardized by those who continue to abuse the system and continue to be allowed to abuse the system because Bill C-36 will not slam the door on that abuse the way it should.

The legislation will be of no use whatsoever if we do not also have the resources in place to enforce it. Norman Inkster, the former commissioner of the RCMP, supports the bill's provisions that allow police to perform preventive arrest, as do we, but there have to be safeguards provided. He has said that other measures must be added, such as stepping up screening procedures at Canada's overseas missions and harmonizing border policies with the United States. He was clear on that and we are clear on that, as are many other associations and provinces.

Mr. Inkster believes it will be easier to deal with this issue offshore than it is to deal with the people when they are inside our borders and that makes ultimate sense. The former RCMP commissioner says that Canada should definitely be gathering information overseas and more important, Canada should be more diligent in whom we allow into the country in the first place.

Another RCMP officer, Sergeant Philippe Lapierre of the National Security Investigation Section, the counterterrorism branch of the RCMP, said at a conference on money laundering in Montreal that some people are sent here with a mission and some people come and are recruited, but once here, they all have the same modus operandi. Then he described what they do when they come here. These are the illegal ones who should not be here, who are allowed to get through and will continue to be allowed to get through by the gaping holes left in the legislation.

He also said that the first step is they claim refugee status, allowing them to remain in Canada as long as their claim is working its way through the cumbersome refugee determination process. He went on to say that the second step is to claim Canadian social benefits, applying for welfare and health cards, to ensure a stream of income. He said that the third step is to become involved in petty crime, such as theft and credit card fraud. Then he said that the fourth step is to launder their money through legal businesses that are set up as fronts. If we are to break this terrorist modus operandi, we must start at the front end and stop false refugee claimants who are security threats from getting into the country in the first place.

Every time we talk about the gaping holes in our refugee determination system, the government assures us that all will be well under the panacea of Bill C-11, but Bill C-11 was in the pipeline long before September 11. It is not a bill designed to deal with the clear and present danger of international terrorists coming into our country.

As a matter of fact, Bill C-11 creates a whole new level of appeals for refugee claimants. In some ways, it makes the matter worse. This vaunted front end screening the minister talks about simply means that we will begin security checks a few weeks earlier in a process that could take 18 months to complete just at the preliminary stage.

What is completely lacking in the bill is the kind of tough measures that are found in comparable U.S. and U.K. legislation.

If refugees arrive in the country on airplanes or on ships without documentation, they must be detained until it can be determined what their true identity is. That has to be checked against existing databases. Then and only then can a determination be made that they are not a security threat, because to have arrived here either by airplane or ship from an international destination, they had to have some kind of document or paper in their possession to get on that plane or that ship. That means somewhere in the process of coming over here, they destroyed their documents. They threw them overboard, tore them up, or did something to them. That automatically makes them suspicious. Those individuals need to be detained until they can be cleared totally of being any threat to security.

Nothing in Bill C-11 addresses these issues. Nothing in Bill C-36 and nothing in Bill C-42 addresses these issues.

In addition to dealing with potential security risks before people show up in the country, we need to provide more resources to the RCMP. The RCMP has served a vital role in the protection of Canadians over the years of our history. This national police force is a source of pride and comfort to Canadians.

Funding problems facing the RCMP during the last decade are well documented. The 2000 Conference Board of Canada report finds that in the past decade, the RCMP lost 2,200 positions and close to $175 million in funding. The report found the results of these cuts were heavy workloads, inadequate operating budgets in the field, loss of trust in senior management and officers who were overworked and demoralized.

Examples of the repercussion of Liberal funding cuts to the RCMP are all over the place. In 1999 in British Columbia the RCMP reported being understaffed and overworked. One 30 month investigation involved numerous hours of unpaid overtime due to an acute lack of financial resources. In RCMP A division, which operates in Ottawa, investigators were denied voice mail, cellphones and pagers. They were even told that they could not spend $20 for new business cards. That is no way to treat the men and women who are serving with their lives to protect Canadians.

In British Columbia the RCMP closed dozens of commercial crime files because there simply were not enough resources to investigate those files. Some officers were responding to calls with their own personal vehicles. This situation existed before September 11. Now post-September 11, we find a massive reallocation of limited resources to the fight against terrorism. What we do not see is a commitment from the government to provide long term, stable and sufficient funding for the force.

This piecemeal approach that the Liberals have taken does not address the severe shortage in human resources that is facing the RCMP. What is most disturbing however is the contradictory messages that we are receiving from the leadership of the RCMP and from those who represent the front line officers.

The front line officers have recognized the desperate situation. They are calling for action. RCMP Sergeant Mike Niebudek revealed that the new war on terrorism has put a severe strain on a force whose resources were already stretched to the limit. David Griffin, who is a Canadian Police Association representative, stated recently: “Before September 11, new squads were being created within the RCMP to deal with organized crime. That priority is being abandoned”. That is what he said. The priority of organized crime is being abandoned. That is simply unacceptable. We cannot simply drop everything that the RCMP was working on prior to September 11, but the funding situation is driving it in that direction.

Statistics Canada just released its statistics for homicide in Canada. It found that over the past five years gang related murders in Canada have more than tripled. The solicitor general must realize that the RCMP needs the resources not only for the fight on terrorism which is so important, but to continue to ensure that Canadians are protected from other threats. What will be done to ensure that in the effort to fight terrorism other responsibilities of the RCMP will not be dropped?

The RCMP has been chronically underfunded by the Liberal government. The Canadian Police Association has recognized this. It passed a resolution at its 2001 annual meeting calling on the federal government to increase funding. The resolution states:

Whereas the RCMP budget has been reduced to the point the force cannot meet its obligations in many parts of Canada,

Whereas RCMP officers are being removed from federal services to augment shortfalls in municipal and provincial complement, and

Whereas the Government of Canada does not adequately fund the RCMP budget as it pertains to areas of federal and national responsibilities, and

Whereas these responsibilities provide vital support to all police agencies in Canada.

The resolution concludes by saying:

Be it resolved that the Canadian Police Association, in co-operation with its member associations, implores the government--

Our police officers should not have to come on bended knees, begging and imploring the government. They are literally begging the Government of Canada “to provide adequate funding to the RCMP budget, to maximize the effectiveness of federal and national policing responsibilities”. The association passed that resolution before September 11.

According to Statistics Canada, there were 5,180 RCMP officers designated as federal in 1994. These officers handled criminal investigations involving organized crime, immigration fraud, money laundering and drug trafficking. Last year that number had dropped to only 4,341 personnel. That is a drop of 839 people through a period now of increased threats from terrorism and organized crime, not to mention an increase in the population.

The threats from organized crime, drug trafficking and immigration fraud did not go away after September 11. They are still here and perhaps even enhanced, yet we hear reports of up to 2,000 mounties being reassigned to investigate terrorist threats. Even Commissioner Zaccardelli has stated that the RCMP is curtailing some work as an effect of the reallocation of these human resources.

We hope the upcoming budget will address the crucial need for more resources for the RCMP. We will be watching very carefully to see that it does.

Another area where the government has shown great neglect, which the bill and actions taken by the government to date have done nothing to address, is CSIS.

Wesley Wark, a University of Toronto associate professor, who was speaking before the justice committee, said that we are at a crisis point in the evolution of Canadian security and intelligence. He believes that parliament has turned a blind eye in the past to security and intelligence matters.

I would only debate with him that parliament has not turned a blind eye to security and intelligence matters. The Canadian Alliance official opposition has had both eyes on that target. The federal government has turned its eyes away from these concerns.

The Toronto professor pointed out that while the United States spends $30 billion a year on intelligence collection and on analysis, Canada spends a laughable fragment of that sum on these matters. That is not acceptable. He also said that CSIS needs more money, something we have been pushing for a long time but to no avail. Even this expert said that money alone is not enough.

CSIS is on the front line protecting Canadians from terrorism. Over the past years CSIS has warned of the threat that terrorists pose to Canada and its allies. However, like the RCMP, funding cuts to CSIS have undermined its ability to operate effectively. According to its 2000 public report, financial resources were $244 million in 1993. In 1999 the figure was down to $179 million. The number of people working for CSIS went from 2,760 in 1993 to less than 2,000 in 1999. This represents a 40% decline in human resources for Canada's counterintelligence service. Today the budget for CSIS is only $194 million and it employs just over 2,000 people.

The lack of both human and financial resources has left the agency and its workers swamped with work, as are RCMP officers. Threat assessments are conducted in years rather than days according to the Security Intelligence Review Committee. The agency simply was not a priority of the government.

According to the solicitor general's 2001 estimates, funding for CSIS would decline further, unbelievably, to $169 million in 2002. This was despite the warning that the terrorist threat to Canada and its allies was at an all time high. This was before September 11.

Paule Gauthier, chair of the Security Intelligence Review Committee, says that the extra $10 million that was announced for CSIS will go largely toward new equipment. What is needed is long term, reliable funding that will enable this important agency to employ the human resources necessary to deal with the mountains of information that must be processed. Dealing with potential threats expediently and efficiently is what CSIS needs to do but it is unable to do that because of the resource cuts the government has hit it with over the last years.

It is the responsibility of CSIS to perform background checks on immigrants and refugee claimants. The Security Intelligence Review Committee reports that CSIS is so overloaded with work it can take years to determine if a person poses a security threat. That is simply not acceptable. The chair of the committee, Paule Gauthier, stated that the agency needed more resources and that it was stretched to the maximum. The screening of refugees and immigrants is one of the most important elements in this fight against terrorism and it requires adequate human resources.

The government's priorities simply must change. We all know the Liberal leadership race is on and the ministers seem to be funding their own pet projects to the detriment of Canada's security. We continue to hear, regardless of what is leaked out in the headlines, that the Minister of Industry wants $1.5 billion for broad band Internet access. Canadians already lead most other nations in the world in terms of personally making the choice to get on the Internet and to have their own personal computers at home. Canadians have done this on their own initiative and yet the minister wants $1.5 billion to enhance chat lines.

The Minister of Justice has asked for an additional $114 million to top up the over $500 million that taxpayers have had to pay out for a firearms registry system that simply is not working.

To put these costs in perspective, we must remember that the total budget for CSIS is under $200 million. We have been told that the accumulated cost of the firearms registry system, which is not working, will be $685 million this year. Where are the priorities? We ask people to think in these terms: $200 million for the war on terrorism and $685 million for the war on duck hunters. The government has to get its priorities in order.

The government must address CSIS funding if Bill C-36 is to be effective at all and not simply a paper tiger.

CSIS also needs, to quote Dr. Wark:

--talent and expertise, and, above all, highly-trained analysts to make sense of the information that is going to be collected by Canadian operatives and be passed to Canada, if we stay in the alliance game, by our allies.

That is absolutely necessary.

He went on to say:

--making sense of the information that comes into a security and intelligence community, putting the pieces of the puzzle together, analysing it well, packaging it in a credible way that will be read and understood.

It is equally and vitally important in Dr. Wark's perspective.

Dr. Wark also believes that there is an enormous deficiency in terms of the way in which intelligence gets to cabinet level for decision making. I feel like making an analogy about intelligence and cabinet level decision making but I am resisting. Dr. Wark ponders the idea of the creation of a cabinet level ministerial position responsible for national security and intelligence. I am not saying I am completely in agreement at this time with that proposition but I do think we need to bring together all the departments responsible for analytical issues in the security and intelligence field. That definitely has to happen.

Furthermore, concurring with the Toronto professor, I believe we need a foreign secret service capacity. Right now under the CSIS Act, CSIS has a restricted mandate for collecting foreign intelligence. That is not good enough today in the war on terrorism.

Dr. Wark goes on to say:

We need such a capacity for a number of reasons, not the least of which is to allow Canada to continue to play a role as an independent actor in the global intelligence business; and, in addition, to allow Canada to maintain its place at the allied intelligence table, which has historically been so vital to any of the successes it has had in that field.

If Canada is not there carrying the weight and carrying the freight, it will be excluded from a position of prominence around that intelligence gathering table internationally. We cannot afford that.

Former RCMP commissioner, Norman Inkster, and former CSIS deputy director, James Corcoran, believe that the CSIS Act requires a full overhaul and they have therefore urged the government to review that 1984 act, and we agree with them.

Under Bill C-36, the CSIS Act has received a minor amendment in that it adds the terms “religious or ideological” to the definition of a security threat. I do not see bin Laden and his troops shivering in fear when they read that.

Appearing before the Senate defence committee, both Inkster and Corcoran said “within Canada needs to be removed from the act to give CSIS a clear international mandate”.

So again, there are still large weaknesses in the powers that are given to the RCMP and to CSIS under the bill, and there is still no guarantee that the resources they will need to be effective, even with this somewhat weakened bill, will be there for them.

Nonetheless, there are provisions in the bill which we support, as I have said, and we will vote for the bill on third reading despite the shabby way the government has dealt with it in the House.

These elements are of grave concern to Canadians, especially in the area of supporting those security forces that need to be there for us.

In 1998, CSIS stated that some 50 international terrorist groups were operating in Canada and that the names included some of the most deadly enemies of peace and democracy in the world today. Some of the groups that were banned by the British terrorism act of 2000 and are known to have operated, and do operate in Canada, are the Babbar Khalsa, the International Sikh Youth Federation, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Kurdistan Workers Party and the Irish Republican Army.

The Kelly report, a recent report from the Senate special committee, stated in 1999 that Canada was a primary venue of opportunity to support, plan or mount terrorist attacks, contrary to what some people wishfully think.

What happened in New York City can happen here, perhaps even worse. Attacks like the New York City attack could be planned and orchestrated from Canadian soil by groups attempting to take advantage of the weaknesses of our legislation.

In 1999, Canada signed the UN international convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism. We need to do more. We need to take extra steps in that regard.

If a government like the United States seeks people accused of terrorism in Canada, we must be convinced that there is reasonable evidence. This is a very important point.

I know some of our colleagues in the House have some sensitivity on this. If there is reasonable evidence, we should turn terrorists over, regardless of the fact that they may face a penalty in that country, for instance in the United States, that would not apply here. That move would require a change in Canadian law to send a signal to terrorists that they cannot take advantage of Canada to avoid facing justice for their crimes.

One can only imagine the outrage if one of the perpetrators of the acts in New York City and Washington, perhaps even the criminal mastermind who so carefully co-ordinated the flight schedules of the terrorists, found his way to Canada and we found ourselves unable to extradite such a person to the United States to face justice. Canadian law must address this possibility now because Canadian citizens will demand it.

Before concluding I must turn to address my friends in the Progressive Conservative/Democratic Representative Caucus Coalition. The Canadian Alliance was pleased that they supported our September 18 motion calling for tough anti-terrorism legislation. At the time and in the days immediately following September 11, they did seem to stand with us in supporting tough action on terrorism, but as the days went by various interest groups started criticizing the bill for giving Canadian police the same kinds of powers as those of police in the United States, Britain and Europe. The interest groups say there are valid concerns about information and privacy rights under the bill and say that we need parliamentary review.

We are pleased that the government has made some amendments in the area, but Canadians deserve tough anti-terrorism legislation to protect them. Our police deserve the powers and resources they need to break up terrorist cells in Canada. Our biggest concern is that the bill is not tough enough in some areas and does nothing to provide the resources that our police and security services need.

Very soon we will all have a fundamental choice. Our colleagues in the PC/DRC will have a fundamental choice. Will they stand with the lobbyists and special interest groups who do not believe in giving police officers the powers they need to do their job or will they stand up for the safety and security of Canadians and our allies? That will be the vital question that we will be asking today, tomorrow and in the days ahead.

We have asked for and received, not perfectly, some of the steps necessary to review the legislation in a proper way at a proper time. In a time of crisis, a time of war, we do recognize that certain liberties we may enjoy at a certain time may in fact be somewhat curtailed because of a crisis that is upon us. That should not be permanent, but it must be in place so that we can prevent the terrible acts happening that otherwise would were it not in effect.

That is why we support the government on the provisions it made. We deplore its complete lack of recognition of the gaping holes that it leaves unattended. We also recognize that there are provisions in place to, at a convenient and proper time, review the legislation and make adjustments if necessary.

The official opposition will continue to ask for the kinds of changes that we feel are necessary to restore confidence to our citizens, confidence in safety and security, confidence in the markets and confidence that we continue to grow both socially and economically.

However, the one thing we cannot afford is complacency. As Edmund Burke famously said, “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing”. Changing laws alone will not stop terrorism. We are legislators and drafting and changing laws is what we do.

Let it not be said after the next horrific terrorist incident that it happened because the good men and good women of the House chose to do nothing.

There was an unfortunate incident that took place in the development and discussion of Bill C-36. It must be addressed. We were all dismayed when we learned earlier that the contents of the bill were actually leaked to the media before being tabled in the House. Our House leader raised it as a question of privilege.

The matter was referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. What is disturbing is that the committee was too quick to give up. More disturbing was the fact that nobody on the government side took responsibility for this glaring act of abuse of the parliamentary process. When the minister leaked the contents of Bill C-15, she took responsibility.

Business of the House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among House leaders and I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following motion, which I would now like to put to the House. I move:

That proposed section 4.83 in clause 5 of Bill C-42 be deleted from that bill; That a new bill implementing the said section be introduced immediately; and That the said new bill be ordered for consideration at second reading on Friday, November 30.

Public Safety Act

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the government continually increases the concentration of power in the hands of the Prime Minister and selected ministers. The Emergencies Act provides detailed examination by parliament of any order issued against it. It includes the right to debate, the right to vote and the right to revoke an order.

But the last eight years of increased executive rule have shown the Prime Minister's autocratic style and increased contempt for parliament. Bill C-42 is just the latest example of executive order to bypass parliament. For a member who has served in the House for over 40 years, and his deputy as well, why has the Prime Minister exhibited such contempt for parliament?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I answered this question last week.

Canadians want to know that in any urgent situation the government can act very swiftly in the national interest. There are legitimate safeguards in the legislation, Bill C-42, including the gazetting of the regulations, including a limit on the regulations, including the fact that the regulations are subject to judicial appeal. All the safeguards are there.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, in Bill C-42 the government has decided to introduce the ability for ministers to pass interim orders declaring emergencies, just as in Bill C-36 the government will grab more executive power. There is no provision for these orders to come to parliament for debate. The orders appear to have no set criteria, do not have to be publicized in the Canada Gazette for 23 days, nor pass through parliament.

Why has the government brought in these measures when the Emergencies Act, with comprehensive powers and specific limitations, already exists?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, we certainly are very sensitive to the legitimate concerns raised by the hon. member. In fact, officials of my department have met with the privacy commissioner. I am sure he will have some comment on this particular clause to amend the Aeronautics Act. It would be our intention by Friday, if the House agrees to the splitting of Bill C-42, to bring in some draft intent of the regulations that would follow from this particular section in the new bill.

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-42 must be consistent with the charter of rights and freedoms. The authority given to the minister is not permanent. It is limited to one year and renewable for one year.

As I have just said, this is entirely consistent with our charter of rights and freedoms. Members of the public in Quebec and throughout Canada must be reassured on this score.

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-42 gives the Minister of National Defence, on the recommendation of his chief of staff, the sole right to order military security zones.

How can the Prime Minister justify having one individual, based solely on his own judgment, being able to decide on such important measures?

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in responding to our concerns on Bill C-42, the Prime Minister said that it would still be possible to go to court. However, that is not the case for military security zones.

Will the Minister of National Defence recognize that one of the things that he could not do before but that Bill C-42 will allow him to do is to not only suspend the rights of citizens, but also to take away their right to sue the government for damages, losses or injuries?

Public Safety

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government does not want to respond. I will tell it what it could not do before and what it will be able to do after Bill C-42 is passed.

I challenge the minister of defence to deny that one of the powers accorded by Bill C-42 is to establish military security zones throughout a province, to thus have the army intervene on the basis of its judgment alone and without the express request by the provincial attorney general. Can the minister say this is not so?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows Bill C-42 does allow for regulations to be made in urgent situations, with all the normal parliamentary and legal safeguards.

I think the hon. member is reading too much into the bill. I think Canadians want a government to act firmly and decisively when there is an urgent problem, as we had on September 11, and not debate the semantics.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister told us that Bill C-42 on public safety was needed to enable the government to act quickly.

We would be interested in hearing from the Prime Minister just what this bill would allow him to do now that he could not do last September.

Our interpretation is that nothing prevented him from taking action in September and that existing legislation is sufficient. If we are mistaken, let him give us one example of his being prevented from acting in September.

Public Safety Act

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

That is another cheap shot, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister today cut off debate on amendments to protect citizens against a power grab by ministers.

His new bill, Bill C-42, gives the government even broader powers over citizens. Ministers unilaterally can declare an emergency, they can define the emergency and they can take emergency measures. The orders do not have to be approved by cabinet for 90 days. They do not have to be publicized for another 23 days.

Is the Prime Minister going to use closure and time allocation to shut down debate on this new bill too?

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have not exaggerated anything at all and I challenge the minister to show me where in the bill it shows that we are exaggerating.

Given the powers granted to the minister in Bill C-42, combined with the powers in the anti-terrorism bill, is the government not in the process of acquiring powers that, curiously, are starting to look much like the powers that were exerted over Quebec City in the 1970s?

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely nothing in Bill C-42 that would limit the size of a military security zone, and the Prime Minister has just confirmed this for us.

Could the Prime Minister indicate where in the bill it states that a military security zone could not cover the entire area of Toronto, for example, or the Montreal urban community or the whole of Quebec? Where in the bill is this written?

Anti-terrorism Act

[Art Hanger, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say how pleased I am to address the bill one more time but I am not at all happy, of course. Many members on the opposition side, and I would not doubt on the government side too if they would stand up and say it, agree that to put closure on this piece of legislation is not a wise thing to do. There is much more to be discussed yet. Given that, I am going to spend my time addressing some more points on the bill, which I think need to be addressed on the issue of resources.

For the last eight years in the House issues of security have always been of high interest to me, having come from a police background. Resources have always been a key point in getting any job done. The more thoroughly one wants the job to be done, the more boots on the ground are required to do it. Whether that is in intelligence gathering or investigation itself or even in the prosecution courts system, those are the areas where people are required to make things happen.

What concerns me not so much with the legislation but with the posturing on the government side is that the real issue has still not been addressed. We could have the best policies in the world. I for the most part do not disagree with much of what is here; there are some exceptions and my colleagues have addressed them quite adequately previously. We can have the best policy which looks really good on the books and even reads well but if we do not have the resources to make things happen, then that policy is all for naught.

Back in 1994 the issue for just about every enforcement agency, and here we are talking about enforcement again but I will throw defence into the mix, was the need for more manpower, resources and up to date equipment so the agencies could effectively do their jobs. That was the call in 1993 and 1994.

In the last four months I have taken trips not only to the border crossings in the country but also to an immigration office overseas. In speaking with some of my police colleagues and immigration enforcement officers, the message was far more urgent to resource the enforcement agencies than it was back in 1994. I cannot understand concentrating on this piece of legislation when it is resources that are going to make things work. In other words, let us put some money into it. Let us tighten up in the areas where it is not working.

If those two issues alone were looked after, if they alone were addressed by the government, I wonder how much legislation we would really need. What does it take to do intelligence gathering? If we have policy that restricts the use of the intelligence we have gathered, it is necessary to address that restriction. One example is shared information with our neighbours to the south. What are the inhibitors on this side of sharing information with them and what are their inhibitors that would prevent them from sharing information with us? To me, legislation for the most part does not come into play here. Or does it? If it does, it should be changed accordingly.

We can have these policies that address certain issues on terrorism and try to make an impact and make our country more secure, but for the most part the government has fallen far short of resourcing those particular agencies that need help. I am going to address some of those agencies, including the immigration offices.

When I was last in Vancouver, the immigration officers spoke of the need for 140 or 150 people right there at that time just to deal with the issues of increased security and processing of immigrants and refugees who came to those ports of entry in British Columbia. Maybe 140 or 150 does not sound like too many, but that is only one district. The minister has declared openly that she would supply 100 officers for the entire country, but technically that does not even fill the bill for the British Columbia district.

What will happen now? There is no question that with Bill C-36, Bill C-11, with the add-on of Bill C-42, which also has to do with immigration, the pressure will be on those frontline officers to deal with it. If they do not deal with it effectively, there will be a slipshod, haphazard job of security checks done on people coming into the country. Again, it is not because of the legislation per se, all of it, but because it is not being resourced. We are not bolstering up the manpower where it counts.

I will give one example. The immigration department alone, in the words of the immigration minister, presently has 27,000 applications that need security checks and security analysis. These cannot be done overnight. Immediately that puts a burden on immigration, on CSIS and so it should. The burden is undue given that both of those agencies are under-resourced. It also puts a burden on immigration enforcement. The enforcement section is already under-resourced.

There are 27,000 applicants now. On top of all of that, throw in another 20,000 claimants who have abandoned all claims. They have abandoned all claims of attempting to go through the refugee process. Where are those individuals? Who are those individuals? No one knows. No one has a clear indication of where or who those people are or if they belong to a questionable organization. It is an unknown factor.

There is much that can be done in dealing with issues such as these. This is a security issue and should be a priority for the government and for parliament. This gives me the opportunity to address those concerns which the government side is not addressing.

Having talked about immigration, I now turn to customs. The frontline officers are the first contact for individuals coming into Canada. They are the first contact, the front line. Their emphasis has always been on goods and services and the revenue generated as a result. It has not necessarily been on immigration. Although some of those officers do a fine job, their training is outside that whole realm. There is not a piece of legislation necessarily that could change that process and put the emphasis where it should be, again to further protect our country, to further protect those who have come here and those making their home in Canada. That is the situation.

The next agency that needs assistance is the RCMP. I am going to name CSIS as well. There is no question that between those two agencies right now the pressure is on our national police force, the RCMP, as well as CSIS, the intelligence gatherer, the analyzing agency that will disseminate much of what is found to other points and agencies in Canada.

The list could go on and on. It all comes back to the whole issue of resources. It is not so much the legislation, not so much the matter that we have another bill we can throw on the shelf and say that we did our job again. It is not that. It is where is the money and the resources to fund what we now claim to be the best piece of legislation going? That is my question to the government.

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, there has been an exceptional amount of debate, both in the House at second reading and at committee, in relation to the legislation. As my parliamentary secretary reminds me, there were even emergency debates following the tragic events of September 11.

Committee members obviously had the opportunity for some days to reflect upon amendments that they would propose and that we have proposed. It was a week ago that I was at committee proposing amendments that the government put forward to improve the legislation, all of which in some part were based upon what we heard before committee.

Now is the time to move forward. Canadians expect their government to act to ensure their security and safety. Our allies around the world are moving and it would be irresponsible for us, as a government, not to move. A government's primary obligation is first and foremost to ensure the safety and security of its people.

What we are doing in Bill C-36, and subsequently in Bill C-42, is putting in place the legal and operational infrastructure necessary to provide Canadians with that degree of safety and security that permits them to get on with their lives.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise following the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice. I do not know whether I should draw a picture or explain to him the difference between a real sunset clause and what the minister calls a sunset clause in Bill C-36.

Either the member across the way knows full well that he is misinforming the House as to what a sunset clause is or he has completely misunderstood the bulk of the evidence we heard at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

What the minister added to Bill C-36 is a misinterpretation of what a sunset clause is. Every expert, every specialist in this field, anyone who has studied the issue is saying loud and clear that the clause the minister calls a sunset clause is not a sunset clause.

What is a sunset clause? Obviously the member does not seem to understand it. I am going to explain it to him and then if he has not understood yet I will draw a picture in three colours. This applies to the minister too.

A sunset clause is a clause that states that the bill or certain provisions will no longer be in effect after a given date. For instance, if one chooses the same date as the minister, one would say that some provisions or the bill, with the exception of such and such a provision, will cease to be in force on December 31, 2006.

Sure, it is five years. We wanted three years; five years is too long. It is only to use the same example as the minister, the same date as the minister. It is a sunset clause. On the day after December 31, 2006, Bill C-36 would cease to exist. Then, if the government wants to re-enact the extraordinary powers it has grabbed, the legislative process would start all over again.

What is a legislative process? Maybe the member, the parliamentary secretary to the minister, still does not know what it is. It starts with the introduction and first reading of a bill. Then, there is second reading. After second reading, if the bill is passed by the House, it is referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The committee reviews the issue, hears witnesses, makes recommendations and proposes amendments to the bill. They are either passed or defeated in committee.

If it is adopted in committee, the bill comes back to the House for consideration at the report stage. There is a vote. Then we go on to third reading. There is another vote. The bill is sent to the other House and the legislative process starts over again. That is a real sunset clause.

The minister told us: “Work adequately and seriously in committee. I will listen to you. What you ask is important. What the other House will do is important. What people will say before the committee is important to me”. What the minister tabled as an amendment in answer to what was said in committee, no one had asked such a frivolous thing in committee, not even in the Senate. Because it is not a sunset clause, it is trivial.

Paragraph 83.32 says that 15 days after December 31, 2006, the government will have 15 days to adopt a motion, without parliament and the members of this House being able to make any amendments.

And with a simple motion, a simple resolution adopted simultaneously by this and the other house, the bill, or more exactly the act, because in five years it will be an act of parliament, the legislation will be extended without the members of this house, the elected members—and in five years, we will probably have seen another election; we will have new elected representatives who will have to justify their actions before their constituents—being able to add a word to this act, being able to modify it. Its application will be extended.

It is not a sunset clause. If there is the least bit of honesty in the front rows, they we will stop saying that paragraph 83.32 is a sunset clause. It is not true.

The justice committee members who are here this afternoon and listening to me know very well that nobody asked for such a clause.

As the member opposite said in his remarks, you will there is the whole issue of review. That review is just some more window dressing. It will be done three years from now. It is reassuring to see that every year a report will be tabled by the Attorney General of Canada and by the attorney general of each province. They will be reporting on their own administration of the act and on the powers they have assumed.

Does anyone know where that report will go? It will go gather dust on the shelves of parliament. Those shelves are full of reports that are worth no more than the paper they are written on.

Is that what we will have to make people feel secure? Who asked for that in committee? I was not absent very often, and in my absence, the hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert was there and later on we would exchange our information. Nobody asked for such a trinket. It is only as a joke that one might imagine such things. All that is to cover up, to grab powers and go on a power trip, as they are doing opposite.

This is a cause for concern because it will be a precedent in criminal law. When we amend the criminal code, this legislation will still be there. They will say: “This has already been done in Bill C-36 in exceptional circumstances, so maybe we could do it again with this principle of law or this criminal code amendment”. Where will it end?

The best proof that this is dangerous and that we can wonder how far this government can go is that—as if Bill C-36 were not enough—last week, Thursday to be precise, they introduced Bill C-42, another bill granting exceptional powers to certain ministers. It is another piece of legislation where the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is ignored. A state of emergency can be declared, and the motion is not examined for conformity to the enabling legislation and the charter of rights.

Do not tell me the charter will apply and that the courts will review this. It can take 30 to 60 days. That is not nearly enough to go before the courts and make sure any given measure is in keeping with the charter of rights and freedoms.

I cannot understand how members opposite, who can see what the ministers are doing, can say nothing. I know some who consider themselves to be champions of individual and collective rights. It is time they said where they stand.

It is not funny, but if we look at the amendments, for example Motion no. 6, we have to ask ourselves: Is the proposed amendment any better than Bill C-36? Just imagine. We are not wondering if this is the right amendment that will allow us to reach the desired balance between individual and collective rights and national security. We are not asking ourselves that question any more.

We can choose between a 35 tonne steam roller and a 25 tonne one. That is the choice we have.

In Motion No. 6, part 2 on the Official Secrets Act, the amendment deals with information that a person can hold and that would be subject to secrecy for life or for a period of 15 years. Will we put this information on hold for 15 years or for life? This is the choice we have today. Of course 15 years is better than life, but it would be even better if we did not have to wait 15 years. We are entitled to know what is going on. We are entitled to this information.

When we vote on an amendment, what we choose in fact is the one that is less offensive.

Across the floor no one rises to speak. In the corridors, when they talk to journalists, one or two members may blurt out that this bill does not make sense. They will say “This bill goes against individual and collective rights. I am a great champion of these rights and I will do my utmost to convince my caucus”. But what really happened? The government rammed 91 amendments through this House to strengthen some of the powers that it gave itself.

This is so true that it had to resort to a complicated scheme in the part dealing with the Access to Information Act. In order not to deprive the Minister of Justice of the power to issue certificates, they delegated that power to a judge of the federal court of appeal through a complicated process. It would have been so simple to delete clauses 87, 103 and 104 and go back to the enabling legislation, to the existing act, which is working well. Who says so? It is not the opposition, but the information commissioner and also the privacy commissioner. Is it so difficult for members opposite to understand that it is not necessary that ministers get involved in this for reasons of national security?

We agree with this motion which proposes to set a 15 year time limit but this is not ideal. Ideally the government should understand the situation and withdraw its bill.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis-Et-Chutes-De-La-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take part in this debate from the perspective of my short experience as a member of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. Even though this bill deals with internal security in Canada, I would like to express my views with that new experience in mind.

Witnesses from various countries and international associations who appeared before the Standing Committee on Human Rights and International Development told us how important and urgent it is that Canada intervene to uphold human rights in other countries.

We should acknowledge that, over the years, Canada has earned an excellent reputation because it advocated the protection of human rights and it has been, to use the Prime Minister's words, the best country in the world as far as the defence of human rights goes.

But, in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, the government has introduced a series of bills, including Bill C-36, dealing with judgments, arrests, and so on, in response to terrorist activities.

At the same time, the government has introduced Bill C-35, aimed at changing international conventions, and Bill C-42, on public transportation safety. We realize that the government reacted in a state of panic.

Although the importance of the terrorist actions of September 11 must not be diminished, including what occurred at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, actions that are unacceptable, we have reacted, because something had to be done. But it had to be done without losing sight of the balance to be maintained between safety and the right to individual freedoms.

Otherwise, as some members of my party have said before me, it would be an inappropriate reaction, playing into the hands of those who were responsible for the September 11 terrorist actions, that is, changing our democracy, our system of individual and group rights to suit the objectives of those rightly called terrorists.

This is not the intent. Safety may be increased and all measures improved, with new ones even being added, in order to increase security.

I personally have nothing against the fact that, for example, we spend more time in line-ups at the airports in order to get to our ridings, because I understand that to fight effectively against attacks like those carried out with planes on September 11, we must all accept that things take longer. I do not think many people in our country are against that.

We have all accepted measures, and there could be others, of course. But there is a limit. I am going to make a comparison. A bill was unanimously passed by MPs last spring against organized crime. There were a lot of deaths—I do not have the figures, but it seems to me there were over 160—which resulted from bikers' wars. Sometimes, it was a settling of accounts among criminals, but sometimes there were innocent victims too. The bill is still awaiting passage in the Senate. It must be following a fairly singular process, since, according to the government, there is some urgency.

There are therefore two processes, so that they are jostling each other at the doors, so to speak. So the bill was passed in a panic during the night.

My colleagues, the hon. members for Berthier—Montcalm, Châteauguay and Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, spent the night proposing a series of amendments in reaction to the pile of amendments proposed by the government, and discussed very rapidly. The whole thing had to be passed within hours.

They proposed some 60 amendments themselves, close to 66, in keeping with the Bloc Quebecois’ objections and aimed at improving this bill. To us, these amendments were a way of being consistent with our vote on second reading, which addressed the principle of the bill and was aimed at improving the situation in order to adopt new measures so that there could be an effective battle against terrorism and at the same time protection of our rights and freedoms.

When one speaks of preventive arrests, these are based on presumptions and on information received, without much idea of where it will lead. Preventive arrests are going to be made only on that basis, without complete evidence, supposedly in the name of national security. This information may sometimes come from the information services of other countries without any decision on them being made by the information commissioner; instead it will be the Department of Justice, or one might almost say the Minister of Justice, because there is sometimes much differentiation.

Hon. members will realize that the definition of terrorism is not clear, even though an attempt was made by a colleague to clarify it. In our opinion, this is not enough. This is why we feel that Motion No. 1 is incomplete. We agree with the other three motions, which are in line with the amendments that the Bloc Quebecois proposed in committee, but that were rejected.

The democratic process is at stake. The government prides itself in being a model for democracies. It keeps making that comment at every opportunity, whether it is when making representations or sending a delegation abroad, and even within the country. The government is very concerned about how human rights are respected elsewhere, but here some parts of the legislation will not be governed by the 1982 charter of human rights, the Trudeau charter. And it wants us to pass this bill very rapidly, after hearing witnesses very quickly.

This is an extremely important bill, yet the provinces were not consulted and no consultations took place outside Ottawa. And the government is gagging us once again. It is telling us that it will use closure, because it is in a hurry to pass this bill as quickly as possible.

As the NDP member said earlier, generally speaking, when a bill has a major impact and includes several new measures, parliament takes all the time necessary to review it. Hon. members do not feel pressured, as is the case now, to do things as quickly as possible and to discuss the legislation as little as possible.

Yet, the government has the necessary tools, including the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, which could broaden its consultation. But instead the government is resorting to closure. We must always go faster. It is this kind of pressure which, in the end, generates even more concern, as was pointed out by several organizations, including one in particular.

I went to the Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Development. Amnesty International is concerned. It feels that the definition of terrorism is not specific enough and that this puts at risk those who may openly express their opinions. We should at least have the support of an organization like Amnesty International.

I would still have a lot to say but I will conclude by congratulating once again my three colleagues who worked really hard to try to propose an acceptable position.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, right at the beginning of my speech, I would like to congratulate the hon. members for Berthier—Montcalm, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, as well as the hon. member for Châteauguay, for the work they have accomplished. They worked extremely hard to try to make Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism act, an adequate bill that responds both to security needs and to rights and freedoms needs.

We must remember that in attacking the two towers of the World Trade Center, fundamentalist terrorists—they are unfortunately of every creed and political stripe—attacked first and foremost freedom, democracy, justice and fairness.

The best way to show them that they were wrong, that they did not win and that they did not undermine our basic, societal principles, is indeed to make sure that we uphold these values that they are fighting against.

To do the opposite would be to say they are right, to let all fundamentalists throughout the world see that, in fact, so-called liberal societies are vulnerable to terrorism and terror and respond by seeking greater safety, but at the very expense of the values that they claim to be upholding.

In this sense, there is a very important societal debate surrounding Bill C-36. I am surprised and shocked to see how casually the Liberals are dealing with these fundamental issues.

While we look at Bill C-36, we must not forget that Bill C-35 is also on the table. This bill gives new powers to the RCMP, including the power to set up security perimeters without being accountable to anyone.

During question period today, the leader and the House leader of the Bloc Quebecois both asked very relevant questions regarding Bill C-42 and they only got sarcasm in return.

A certain madness is now affecting our friends opposite. At the Sub-Committee on Investment, of which I am a member, they made a proposal to try and solve the traffic problem at the Canada-U.S. border, because there is a traffic problem there, by imposing a mandatory identity card.

Just imagine the disproportion between a necessary debate, and I am not saying that I am against this idea, and the fact that we are using the excuse that we have to ease the movement of people between Canada and United States, to impose an identity card to all Canadians without further debate.

There is some sort of a drift in Bill C-35 and Bill C-42, and in general, in the government approach to security. It is also obvious in Bill C-36.

I have the feeling that we are sailing on the Titanic and that the Liberals are having a ball without realizing the iceberg they have created.

Bill C-36 destroys the balance between rights and freedoms and security. Meanwhile, they are having fun, as if nothing were the matter, refusing to hear what the witnesses said and refusing to accept what the opposition parties, particularly the Boloc Quebecois, have brought forward in committee, in a non-partisan fashion. I am glad to see that the Progressive Conservative Party/Democratic Representative Caucus Coalition is bringing in a number of amendments to make some adjustments, but those amendments will likely not pass.

So, we are now witnessing some very worrisome indifference and nonchalance. The Liberals' haste in that regard is cause for concern, all the more so—we should not be naive—as there is a very strong temptation on the part of the Prime Minister and the government to take advantage of the legitimate concerns of Quebecers and Canadians in order to strenghten, in every respects the power that rests with the executive and with the police.

I want to remind the government that, of course, in the post-September 11 context, there is now major support from the Canadian population in particular, and to a lesser extent from Quebec, for the federal government to overcome that crisis.

I also remind this government that we saw the same kind of support during the gulf war. President Bush Sr. was on top of opinion polls after the gulf war. A year later, he lost the elections to Clinton. Why? Because he had not dealt with other issues of social justice and economic development. Let us recall how casually he dealt with the economic crisis of the early 1990s.

This government will continue to drift if it is not careful. Since I am not in favour of developing policy based on worst-case scenarios, I hope that the Liberal government will adjust Bill C-35, Bill C-36 and Bill C-42 and stop using the current climate to try transform us into state that is more totalitarian than democratic.

We will be voting against Bill C-36. I think that the previous speakers explained that this bill—with the inadequate, cosmetic amendments proposed by the minister—upsets the fair balance between security and freedom.

We supported the bill at second reading, because we support co-ordinated, special legislation to deal with the terrorist situation, as was the case with criminal biker gangs. Incidentally, we are anxious to see what the other place will do with the legislation.

We attempted to propose amendments in committee. The minister and the Liberals simply discarded the main amendments in an off-hand manner, except for one, as we mentioned, that was fairly obvious.

Once again, these were not amendments that we hatched out of the blue. They were developed after hearing the witnesses that appeared before the committee. This is the reason that we called for a sunset clause. Because we do not know where this bill will lead us. There needs to be a time limit to ensure that any problems that we have not been able to predict, despite all our good efforts, can be corrected.

Obviously we support maintaining all of the provisions in the bill dealing with international conventions. As for the rest, there would need to be another debate in three years' time. And the need for that debate still exists. All that the minster is proposing is a clause whereby only two provisions would be dropped after five years, that is preventive arrests and investigative hearings. It really is a complete farce.

Despite the fact that the bill comes up after three years, we still need to correct problems as they arise. Therefore, the annual review process is essential. What we are proposing is that different departments report. How will this work when they are acting as both judge and jury?

However, I want to focus on the definition of terrorist activity, particularly subsection 83.01( b ). I will give a fictitious example.

Suppose this is May 1, 1974. In September 1973, General Pinochet overthrew the democratically elected Allende government. Now, suppose that a group of students decided to peacefully occupy the Chilean consulate. If we go through all the clauses we have before us, we will see that this act corresponds perfectly to what is considered a terrorist act under the bill.

I will quote the subsection in question:

(a) in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause, and

Opposing the dictatorship of Pinochet in Chili, in 1973-1974—which lasted much too long—that is a political purpose.

...in whole or in part with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public, with regard to its security, including its economic security...

That is not relevant.

...or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act...

What did these young people want to do? They wanted to make sure that the Chilean government would restore democracy in Chili. And this answers that.

Let us read a bit further. Clause ( e ) reads:

...causes serious interference with or serious disruption of an essential service, facility or system, whether public or private...

Of course, occupying a consulate can be considered serious interference with a foreign service.

Honestly, if you look at this bill, at this definition, because of they did in 1974, that group of students could be considered as terrorists under this bill.

However, it is not too late to bring in appropriate changes. By the way, I find it paradoxical, and I will conclude on that, that at the very same time that we are honouring Nelson Mandela by making him an honorary Canadian citizen, we want to pass a bill that would have made him a terrorist in the eyes of the Canadian government.

In dealing with terrorism, our main concern is unity. In the present context, the Liberal government is the one that has broken this unity and is forcing us to vote against Bill C-36. It is very disappointing.

Terrorism

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, the action began on September 11, first at a meeting of federal and provincial energy ministers that was taking place in Quebec City at that time. It was rapidly followed up by action by the National Energy Board in consultation and co-operation with the Office of Critical Infrastructure and in collaboration with the provinces.

Since that time the NEB, on the advice of the RCMP and CSIS, has been fully on top of any real or perceived terrorism threat. All the appropriate action is being taken, including new legislative authority in Bill C-42.

Public Safety Act

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice who will remember that there was quite a bit of concern and still is about the potential in Bill C-36 to abuse or obstruct legitimate dissent. We see the same possibility in Bill C-42, the public safety act.

As the member in cabinet from Alberta, would the Minister of Justice tell us if this particular bill is intended for Kananaskis next year? Is the hidden agenda here to make sure the whole area can be declared a military security zone and protesters cannot get anywhere near it?

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if Bill C-42 had been applied at the Quebec City summit, for example, this would have meant that control would have been taken out of the hands of the regular police forces and handed over to the army and, what is more the protesters' rights and freedoms as well as their right to sue would have been suppressed.

Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that under this bill a peaceful protester who had a run-in with the military would not have had any rights or any right to recourse?

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the combination of the two new security bills constitutes an unprecedented power grab by this government. Bill C-42 lets the defence minister, after consulting only his chief of defence staff, designate military security zones. That authorizes the army to stop citizens from going places where they might normally go, specifically places like national parks, places like the post office, without any explanation or any justification.

Will the Prime Minister introduce at least an oversight provision that might protect Canadians against this serious and unjustified abuse of civil rights?

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in Bill C-42 on public safety, the designation of military security zones by the Minister of National Defence goes totally against some provisions of the charter of rights and freedoms in that the rights of people will be suspended.

Can the Prime Minister confirm that, within the security zones to be created under Bill C-42, certain rights, including the right to demonstrate and the rights to freedom of association, freedom of expression and freedom of movement may be suspended, which means that the public will lose some of its rights?

Anti-terrorism Act

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is now my turn, on behalf of the team of members of the Bloc Quebecois, to rise and speak to Bill C-36, a bill that has made us work so very hard.

First I would like to address the comments made in the House by a colleague from the New Democratic Party, comments in the form of a reproach for having voted in support of this bill at second reading. Despite our serious concerns, we voted for the bill at second reading because we thought that it was wise, given the events of September 11, that the legislation be reviewed. However, we immediately established that it was important and necessary to have a balance between the quest for sufficient security for citizens, and the protection of rights and freedoms. We worked very hard on this. Our critic, the member for Berthier--Montcalm, submitted 66 amendments. These were defended not only by him, but on a number of occasions by many different witnesses.

However, we had no choice but to conclude that the minister did not listen very well, since she only kept one of those 66 amendments. We certainly do not regret having taken the time to do this exercise, because we worked in good faith to improve a bill that greatly needed to be improved. But the more time passes, the more this good faith is being put to the test. This is not the time to discuss this issue, but I want to stress the fact that we are greatly concerned by Bill C-42.

The purpose of Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism act, was to establish special measures to deal with a special situation. This is why, apart from the fact that Canada is finally prepared to ratify international conventions on terrorism—as mentioned in the bill—this legislation had to have a time limit.

I have seen the proposed French legislation. As regards anti-terrorism measures, it provides that such measures will begin and end at specific dates. We wanted this review, which is resulting in stricter measures because of an exceptional situation, to be recognized as exceptional and therefore to include a time limit.

Unfortunately, what the government is proposing is very far from that. The minister accepted only two provisions that would be governed by a sunset clause, although not a real one. There would be a vote to renew the act. The bill will not lapse: there will simply be a review by the House.

We have before us amendments to improve clause 4 of the bill. While we support these amendments, and I will say why if I have enough time, they will not eliminate the excessive nature of this legislation and the imbalance between people's rights and freedoms and security. It is because of this imbalance in favour of security, at the expense of people's rights and freedoms that, unfortunately, we will vote against the bill at third reading.

Despite the amendments presented by the minister and the ones before us, with which we agree, clause 4 remains a major concern.

It is distressing and perturbing for someone who, like me, lived through the 1970s in Quebec. It is hard not to remember.

Motion No. 1 by the member for Lanark—Carleton does not go far enough to remove the despicable paragraph 83.01(1)( b ). It reads, and I quote:

(b) an act or omission, in or outside Canada—

There is no indication what act is committed and to what end, but the word for is used. Does this really indicate there are reasons for this and that in such a case these acts would be acceptable? This is very disturbing. Or it is really a matter of the substance, but that is not the aim of the bill?

As time is moving on, I will say we support Motions Nos. 2, 3 and 4, which are aimed in the right direction. Not only do they set out a series of criteria for the solicitor general on listing an entity, but they enable those concerned to know there will be criteria.

Motion No. 3 is useful. The solicitor general should take his time. If he exceeds the time allotted, the person will remain a listed entity. With this amendment, he is being asked to act quickly. If he does not, the person will no longer be a listed entity.

Finally, Motion No. 4 ensures that any person needing to defend himself or herself will be entitled, even without asking for one, to counsel.

We want these measures passed and the bill improved somewhat. It is with great fear that we realize the government is heading toward getting it passed.

Privilege

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege with regard to Bill C-42, a bill that was tabled earlier today and debated during question period.

Like Bill C-36, Bill C-42 was drafted to address the security issues facing Canadians as a result of the attack on the United States on September 11. Once again the security of the very bills designed to protect the security of Canadians has been breached. The government indicated that the bill was not ready to be tabled in the House yesterday, yet its contents were leaked to the media.

There was an article in the Globe and Mail by Steven Chase and Campbell Clark which reports “the legislation will include stopgap immigration enforcement measures similar to ones contained in immigration Bill C-11, that will not be in effect until late spring 2002, government sources said”. The article goes on with details of the bill, quoting government sources.

This is also within the context of the fact that yesterday in question period we asked substantive questions of the government about the contents of the security bill. The government said it could not answer the questions and that it was going to be tabled tomorrow. At the same time that it was not answering our questions, it was answering questions from the Globe and Mail on the phone to meet its four o'clock deadline.

As with the cases of Bill C-15 and Bill C-36, the media received an extensive briefing before members were and before the bill was tabled. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice and her department were held in contempt of the House for leaking the contents of Bill C-15. The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is presently looking into the leak of Bill C-36. The deputy clerk of the privy council appeared before the committee this morning and reported on his investigation into the Bill C-36 case.

In your ruling, Mr. Speaker, on Bill C-15 you stated:

In preparing legislation, the government may wish to hold extensive consultations and such consultations may be held entirely at the government's discretion. However, with respect to material to be placed before parliament, the House must take precedence.

Not the Globe and Mail , the House.

The convention of the confidentiality of bills on notice is necessary, not only so that members themselves may be well informed, but also because of the pre-eminent role which the House plays and must play in the legislative affairs of the nation.

To deny to members information concerning business that is about to come before the House, while at the same time providing such information to the media that will likely be questioning members about that business, is a situation that the Chair cannot condone.

In this case it is clear that information concerning legislation...was given to members of the media without any effective measures to secure the rights of the House.

I have concluded that this constitutes a prima facie contempt of the House.

This matter was referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The committee concluded:

The committee believes that the protocol of the Department of Justice whereby no briefings or briefing material should be provided with respect to a bill on notice until its introduction in the House of Commons should be adopted as a standard policy by all government departments. We believe that such a policy is respectful of the House of Commons and its members. It recognizes the legislative role of parliament, and is consistent with parliamentary privilege and the conventions of parliament.

The committee noted that the adoption of such a policy should not be viewed as preventing the provisions of courtesy copies of government bills on a confidential basis to opposition critics shortly before their introduction. The committee went on to state:

This incident highlights a concern shared by all members of the Committee: apparent departmental ignorance of or disrespect for the role of the House of Commons and its members. Even if the result is unintended, the House should not tolerate such ignorance within the government administration to undermine the perception of parliament's constitutional role in legislating. The rights of the House and its Members in this role are central to our constitutional and democratic government.

Finally, the committee heeded this warning:

Failure to adopt appropriate measures could lead to a reoccurrence of this problem, in which case the House would have to consider using its power in a more severe way.... The acceptance of an apology will not necessarily be considered a sufficient response.

Despite this warning, the government proceeded to leak the contents of Bill C-36 and yesterday it leaked the contents of Bill C-42.

On the privy council website it describes ministerial responsibility as:

Ministerial responsibility is a fundamental principle of the constitution.... This responsibility is honed by the ever present possibility that in particular circumstances ministers may be embarrassed, suffer loss of prestige weakening themselves and the government, jeopardize their standing with their colleagues and hence their political future, or even be forced to submit to public enquiry possibly resulting in censure and loss of office as a result of the way in which their power has been used.

We have already embarrassed the government with the Bill C-36 and Bill C-15 cases.

We have had a public inquiry through the work of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. We have had a minister censured and charged with contempt. The only thing left to do is to call for the minister's resignation.

It is time for action, not more studies and not more warnings. The minister should take responsibility for this action. Mr. Speaker, if you rule this to be a prima facie question of privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion to that effect.

Bill C-42

[Val Meredith, Canadian Alliance, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, while there are a few long overdue changes in Bill C-42 they are overshadowed by the continuation of the government's disturbing trend of making parliament irrelevant.

Much of the bill gives government ministers carte blanche to implement by regulation instead of passing legislation through parliament. For example, not only does the bill give the transport minister sole authority to decide what type of airport screening system there will be in Canada. He will decide how it is to be paid for.

For eight years the Liberal government has transferred one legislative authority after another to the executive branch of government. However if the Liberals plan on delegating parliament's authority to impose taxes we might as well just close the doors and go home.

While the coalition has put forth proposals to increase parliamentary oversight, why do the Liberals continue to weaken the authority of the House?

Public Safety Act

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-42, an act to amend certain acts of Canada, and to enact measures for implementing the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, in order to enhance public safety.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2001

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved that Bill C-15, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to amend other acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to begin second reading debate on Bill C-15, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to amend other acts.

As omnibus bills before it, Bill C-15 has a number of diverse elements. Most recently we have seen examples of omnibus bills: Bill C-51 in 1999, Bill C-17 in 1996 and Bill C-42 in 1994. These examples demonstrate that the practice of introducing criminal amendments through an omnibus bill is a longstanding practice and one that has served the criminal justice system well.

The amendments proposed in the criminal law amendment act, 2001 respond to serious crimes against children and other vulnerable members of society, provide additional safeguards for the law enforcement community, strengthen our laws concerning cruelty to animals, make administrative and procedural improvements to the justice system, and make administrative amendments to the Firearms Act.

First I will deal with the proposed amendments to better protect our children. The provisions that deal with protecting children respond to the government's commitment in the Speech from the Throne to safeguard children from criminals on the Internet and to ensure that children are protected from those who would prey upon their vulnerability. They also respond to a consensus of ministers responsible for justice at the last FPT meeting to create an offence of Internet luring.

The Internet is a new technology that can be used to stimulate the communication of ideas and facilitate research, but, as with any instrument, when placed in the wrong hands it can be used for ill and to cause harm. Canadians will not tolerate a situation where individuals, from the safety and secrecy of their house, use the anonymity of the Internet to lure children into situations where they can be exploited sexually.

The new offence seeks to address what has been reported as a growing phenomenon not only in our country but globally. It criminalizes communicating through a computer system for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a sexual offence against a child or the abduction of a child.

We also want to ensure that those who view, or transmit child pornography to others, will not escape criminal liability by using new technologies.

We will extend the scope of current child pornography offences to make it clearer that actions that constitute an offence when committed with traditional means remain an offence when committed with electronic means.

Bill C-15 seeks to create four new offences: an offence of transmitting child pornography to cover one to one distribution, such as e-mail sent to one person only; an offence of making child pornography available to cover those who post child pornography on a publicly accessible website but take no other steps to distribute it; an offence of exporting child pornography to meet our international obligation; and an offence of accessing child pornography to capture those who intentionally view child pornography on the net but where the legal notion of possession may be problematic. The offence is defined to ensure that inadvertent viewing would not be caught under this offence.

I will now turn to three other proposed measures to better protect vulnerable Canadians. The first measure I wish to mention is the offence of criminal harassment, or stalking as it is sometimes referred to. This is a serious offence that can have a devastating effect upon the emotional and physical well-being of the victim.

In Bill C-15, this government is taking strong measures to ensure that the criminal justice system treats criminal harassment as the serious offence that we know it to be.

The government's response to this issue is twofold: first, to strengthen the existing legislation; and, second, to strengthen enforcement of the law through comprehensive guidelines for criminal justice personnel on criminal harassment.

Bill C-15 responds to our first commitment by proposing to increase the maximum penalty for criminal harassment when prosecuted on indictment from five to ten years. This sends a strong signal to would-be stalkers. Criminal harassment is a serious offence and its sentence would now better reflect this serious nature.

With respect to our second commitment relating to enhancing the enforcement of the criminal harassment provisions, I am pleased to note that together with our federal, provincial and territorial counterparts a handbook for police and crown prosecutors on criminal harassment was developed and released in December 1999. The handbook provides a practical set of guidelines for criminal justice personnel on all aspects of a criminal harassment case, including victim safety.

I now wish to address the difficult issue of home invasions, one that has been raised by a number of my colleagues on all sides of the House. The term home invasion is generally used to describe a robbery or break and enter of a private residence when the perpetrator forces entry while the occupants are at home, and this is key, and the perpetrator threatens to use or does use violence against the occupants.

The proposed amendment to the criminal code would indicate that where the offender's conduct was in the nature of a home invasion the court must consider this to be an aggravating factor when determining the sentence to be imposed. Such an amendment would provide clear direction to the courts and would express parliament's view that home invasion is a grave form of criminal conduct which must be dealt with appropriately during the sentencing process.

Another important measure proposed in Bill C-15 is the new offence of disarming or attempting to disarm a peace officer. This new offence would apply to anyone who tries to take away an officer's weapon when the officer is acting in the course of his or her duties. It is proposed that this new offence carry a maximum penalty of five years to reflect the seriousness of the offence and to send a clear message that taking or attempting to take a police officer's weapon would not be tolerated. The safety of police officers is a priority for the government.

The criminal law amendment act, 2001, would revive amendments introduced in the last parliament dealing with cruelty to animals. The proposed reforms have two primary objectives: to simplify and better organize the existing laws and to enhance the penalties for animal cruelty.

In particular we are increasing the penalties for animal cruelty offences with the highest penalty being five years in prison, up from the current maximum of six months. We would eliminate the current limit of two years maximum duration for an order prohibiting the offender from possessing animals and would include a new power for the court to order as part of a sentence that the offender repay to a humane society the reasonable costs associated with the care of the animal.

I would like to make clear this afternoon that these changes do not in any way negatively affect the many legitimate activities that involve animals, such as hunting, farming, or medical and scientific research. These are regulated activities subject to specific technical rules and regulations and codes of practice. The criminal law is not being used to establish or modify industry standards but rather to prohibit conduct that is grossly unacceptable. Simply put, what is lawful today in the course of legitimate activities would be lawful when the bill receives royal assent.

The law already requires that we treat animals humanely and with respect. These amendments would ensure that the law can adequately deal with those who would wilfully abuse animals. I believe that all members of the House can support this principle. There is no subject on which I receive more mail from Canadians on a weekly basis than on the question of modernizing our laws in relation to cruelty to animals.

I would like to speak now in relation to the proposed amendments concerning firearms. The Canadian firearms program is an example of the preventive approach our government takes to public safety. Moreover, the program is already achieving higher levels of public safety for all Canadians and the facts demonstrate it.

Since December 1, 1998, more than 3,000 licences have been refused or revoked by public safety authorities. The number of revocations is 26 times higher than the total of the five previous years. Overall the licensing compliance rate in Canada is now over 90%.

However, we have learned from the licensing experience. We have also listened to the concerns of gun owners and other Canadians about program efficiency and client service. We are proposing administrative changes to facilitate the registration process and to continue to ensure a high level of service to clients. These administrative changes do not affect the deadline of January 1, 2003, for registration of all firearms nor the government's commitment to public safety.

We are responding to the needs and wishes of Canadians and firearms owners by proposing changes that will make the program more user friendly, more cost efficient and client oriented. We will design a more streamlined system by simplifying the licence renewal process, by redesigning the registration process and by making better use of new and emerging Internet technology, for example, by allowing for registration of firearms online. We also intend to improve efficiency and reduce costs, for example, by staggering firearms licence renewals to avoid a surge of applications in five year cycles.

With these amendments, we will reach a balance between the interests of responsible firearms owners and our shared objective of public safety.

The efficiency of any criminal justice system depends upon its ability to protect the innocent while bringing those who are guilty of crime to justice. Despite all the precautions that our justice system takes to avoid the conviction of an innocent person, no system is infallible. Wrongful convictions can occur and regrettably have occurred in the past. The names Donald Marshall, David Milgaard and Guy Paul Morin make my point.

In such cases our entire justice system finds itself in disrepute. That is why Bill C-15 includes important improvements to section 690 of the criminal code, the conviction review process. It is a final safety net for those who are the victims of wrongful conviction.

In October 1998 we released a public consultation paper seeking submissions on how our conviction review process could be improved. The consultations informed the measures now found in Bill C-15.

The ultimate decision making authority in criminal conviction reviews will remain with the federal Minister of Justice, who is accountable to parliament and to the people of Canada. The Minister of Justice can recognize and maintain the traditional jurisdiction of the courts while providing a fair and just remedy in those exceptional cases that have somehow fallen through the cracks of the conventional justice system.

However, maintaining the status quo is not an acceptable option. Therefore the amendments to section 690 will provide investigative powers to those investigating cases on behalf of the Minister of Justice. This will allow investigators to compel witnesses to testify and documents to be produced.

In order to make the conviction review process more open and accountable, ministers of justice will now be required to provide an annual report to parliament and a website will be created to give applicants information on the process.

I believe that these amendments are the most efficient and effective way to improve the post-appellant extrajudicial conviction review process in Canada.

Let me turn briefly to the area of criminal procedure reform. The Department of Justice has been working closely with the provinces and territories on criminal procedure reform for some years. This work is now in its third phase.

The objectives of phase three are to simplify trial procedure, modernize the criminal justice system and enhance its efficiency through the increased use of technology, better protect victims and witnesses in criminal trials, and provide speedy trials in accordance with charter requirements.

We are trying to bring criminal procedure into the 21st century. This phase reflects our efforts to modernize our procedure without in any way reducing the measure of justice provided by the system.

As I said at the outset, the provinces and territories support these reforms. As they are responsible for the administration of justice, I believe that we should do our best to give them the tools they need to ensure the efficient and effective operation of the criminal justice system.

In conclusion, I am sure the standing committee will give Bill C-15 its usual thorough review and examination. I believe it contains a number of important improvements to the criminal justice system and measures that will contribute to the protection and safety of all Canadians. I call on all members of the House to support the bill.

With consent, I would move that the debate on Bill C-15 do now adjourn.

Judges Act

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to participate in the third reading debate on Bill C-12, an act to amend the Judges Act.

Before I begin my remarks I would like to congratulate the chief opposition justice critic, the hon. member for Provencher, who has made excellent comments and explained very eloquently the official opposition's position on the Judges Act.

The purpose of the bill is to implement the federal government's response to the report of the 1999 Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission regarding compensation and benefits for judges. It would amend the Judges Act to increase judicial salaries and allowances, modify the current judicial annuities scheme and put into place a separate life insurance plan for federally appointed judges.

Bill C-12 makes other consequential amendments to the Judges Act and the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act. The commission is appointed for a four year term and mandated to consider the compensation and benefits of judges and to make recommendations to government.

The commission consists of three members appointed by the governor in council and it should be noted who nominates the three persons. One is nominated by the judiciary, one by the Minister of Justice and one, who acts as a chair, is nominated by the first two members.

The government accepted the commission's recommendation of a salary increase of 11.2% retroactive to April 1, 2000. The salary increase will cost approximately $19 million. The 42 page bill contains nothing but amendments, replacements or additions to previous clauses changing the salaries of 1,013 federally appointed judges. There are also amendments to compensation benefits, early and special retirement provisions, pro-rated annuities, et cetera.

The judiciary had initially proposed a salary increase of 26.3%. It had said the federal government must compete with high paying law firms to attract superior candidates to the bench. However federal representatives told a hearing into judges' salaries earlier this year that there was no shortage of candidates for the bench, pointing out that there had been eight applicants for each federal job over the last decade.

The last pay raise for federal judges was in 1998 when they received 4.1%. In 1997 they received another 4.1%. The judges received more than 8.2% in increases over two years. Judges' salaries are also indexed so they receive annual cost of living increases. While we have no position on judges' salaries and pensions we favour generally that they be comparable to those in the private sector.

In the 35th parliament the government introduced two bills, Bill C-2 and Bill C-42, amending the Judges Act. In the 36th parliament there was Bill C-37. All these bills, including Bill C-12 which we are debating today, have been said to be administrative in nature. Four times the Liberal government has come forward with amendments to the Judges Act.

Another concern I have with the bill is that the pay increase for federally appointed judges is higher than the increase the federal government is prepared to grant much lower paid public service employees. Lately it has been the practice of the government to grant raises to senior officers in the military, to senior bureaucrats and now to judges while dragging its feet on a general salary increase for staff.

While we do not dispute the salaries of appointed judges and others, they should generally be in line with the private sector. It is apparent that staff in the lower echelons of our justice system is being ignored. Public servants should get salary increases in keeping with the average Canadian wage earner. The government has awarded pay raises and bonuses to judges and senior bureaucrats while frontline police officers and lower level public servants receive little or nothing.

On March 27, 1998, RCMP officers secured a pay raise of 2% retroactive to January 1, 1998. They received a second increment of 1% on April 1, 1998, and an additional 0.7% increase on October 1, 1998. RCMP officers had their wages frozen for five years.

The official opposition will review and closely scrutinize the provisions of Bill C-12, including the annuities scheme.

It seems the government has tailor made legislation to fit certain individuals and situations. Legislation tailor made to fit an individual would compromise the impartiality of our judiciary. The changes proposed to the Judges Act would allow a judge who is married for the second time to another judge after the death of his or her first spouse, also a judge, to collect both or two survivor's benefits upon the death of his second spouse. One could only guess why the government would contemplate such a rare and highly unlikely situation. We will be investigating that and we will be vigilant while debating the bill.

We propose an independent and publicly accountable judiciary that would safeguard Canadians from the arbitrary power of the state. However it must remain the responsibility of parliament, not the courts, to debate and assess the conflicting objectives inherent in public policy development.

It is interesting to note that the last bill to amend the Judges Act, Bill C-37 in the 36th parliament, created the Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission which provided the federal government yet another opportunity to make patronage appointments. The failure of the current bill to introduce changes to the appointment process means that important and high paying positions in our court system will remain part of the patronage system.

However the Canadian Alliance would like to see the patronage appointment process in the judiciary overhauled to make it more transparent and publicly accountable. One option would be to strike a committee to review and interview candidates whose names would be put forward to the Prime Minister.

The input of the provinces, which are affected directly by decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada, is required in such matters. At the moment there is no input from the provinces in the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Section 69 of the Canadian Alliance declaration of policy, which is always dictated by the grassroots members, states:

We believe that a non-partisan civil service, an independent judiciary and competent leadership of government agencies, boards and commissions are vital in a democracy. We will therefore ensure appointments to these positions are made through an open and accountable process based on merit.

In conclusion, both Liberal justice ministers since 1993 have failed to introduce a victims' bill of rights, address important issues pertaining to drinking and driving or even pass a young offenders act. Instead they occupy the justice committee with administrative matters at the expense of more important issues. The country is experiencing a backlog in the courts and criminal trials are being put on hold, yet the government tinkers with the salaries of judges.

I regret that judges are somehow caught up in the legislation. We acknowledge that judges are very hard working and want to contribute to making our judicial system fairer and faster as well as to making Canada a better country. We are talking about Liberal government mismanagement.

The government's unfair treatment of Canadians who work or are otherwise involved in the criminal justice system knows no boundaries. Its inequitable treatment of Canadian workers extends all the way to the federal court benches. It does not treat the victims of crime fairly, and today we are debating a bill that does not even treat judges fairly.

The bill does not address the multitude of concerns that many Canadians have with the judicial system. My colleagues and I strongly oppose the bill unless it is amended.

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the bill amends the Judges Act to implement the government's response to the recommendations made by the 1999 Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission. Among those recommendations is a retroactive salary increase of 11.2% for approximately 1,013 federally appointed judges. This would cost the federal government approximately $19 million.

The increase is retroactive to April 1, 2000, and would raise the base salary from $179,200 to $198,000 for judges who sit on appeal courts and superior courts in each province. The salaries for the chief justices in those courts would increase to $217,000 from $196,500. These same increases would also apply to federal court judges.

The judges on the Supreme Court of Canada would remain the highest paid. The eight regular judges would see an increase to $235,700 from $213,000, while the salary of the chief justice would rise to $254,000 from $230,200.

This is the fourth time the government has sought to amend the Judges Act. During the 35th parliament the government introduced Bill C-2 and Bill C-42, and during the 36th parliament, Bill C-37, all of which were relatively minor pieces of legislation.

In April 1998, Bill C-37 was introduced to establish the Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission. Bill C-37 also increased judges' salaries retroactively, providing an 8.3% pay increase over two years. This meant an average $13,000 pay increase for federal judges, with salaries increasing from $159,000 to over $172,000.

I would be hard pressed to think of any other public servant, or any hard-working Canadian for that matter, who received that kind of pay increase in 1998.

According to Statistics Canada, the consumer price index from 1996 to 1998 rose 2.55%. It is safe to assume that the salaries of most Canadians across the country would be affected by that statistic. Not only have the salaries of judges increased at a rate substantially higher than those of most Canadians, but their salaries are already indexed. I think that is important to remember.

No other senior public servant or any other lower level public employee has been given such a significant pay increase in the last number of years. While the government indicates that the raise is a reasonable one, it is interesting to note that senior public servants have received raises of no more than 5.7%.

It is not only public servants and other public employees who do not receive these types of extensive benefits. The very people who administer our justice system, the people on the ground who do the practical work in looking after the safety and security of Canadians first hand, seem to be ignored.

For example, in 1998, the same year that federal judges were given these generous salary increases, RCMP officers who had their salaries and wages frozen for five years were finally granted an increase of a mere 2% in March 1998, retroactive to January. If the concern is that judges receive these raises to ensure that there is no corruption of our justice system or any undue influence, is the same not true for the men and women who serve in our federal police forces?

A second pay increase was given to RCMP officers in April 1998 and later that year they received another small increase. However, over the five years that their salaries were frozen and in the next year, 1998, the RCMP received an increase of only 3.75%. These frontline officers are putting their lives on the line every day for Canadians, but the average three year constable received an increase of less than $2,000 over those years.

In contrast, the bill would provide an 11.2% increase to judges who are making well over $120,000 or $130,000 a year, some over $200,000 a year. There are so many other people within our justice system who are absolutely vital in ensuring that the system is functioning properly but are not getting the same kind of increase. These are often the same men and women who are forced to cope with the results of several years of cutbacks to the justice system.

One would assume that if money can be found to increase the salaries of judges, then money could also be found to give local police and RCMP the resources they need to do their jobs effectively.

Also, in many provinces crown attorneys do not have sufficient resources to prosecute the cases they are charged with. In this context I am especially thinking of the new legislation the government is bringing forward in respect of organized crime. While I support many of the principles, I wonder about the genuine attitude of the government in failing to provide adequately for the resources for frontline officers and frontline prosecutors to get the job done. There is no question that in the Canadian justice system there is a significant amount of delay and backlog, which needs to be remedied.

Another appalling situation in our country is the embarrassingly low wages paid to members of our armed forces. It is ridiculous that people who protect our nation, both at home and abroad, and put their lives at risk to ensure some measure of security for all Canadian citizens are fighting with antiquated equipment and are often forced to go to food banks to make ends meet. Now we hear that the minister is authorizing a raise in the rents that our armed forces have to pay. I do not think that is acceptable.

I understand from the government that the main rationale for this pay increase for judges is that the federal government must compete with high paying law firms to attract superior candidates to the bench. While I believe that a competitive salary is required to ensure good candidates, I do not believe that there has ever been any great shortage of candidates for the bench.

In such cities as Toronto and Vancouver, where a $200,000 plus yearly income for a lawyer may not be unusual, it is not outside the realm of possibility that such people may not be attracted to the bench for fear of a pay cut. However, in Manitoba, for example, I believe there would be no shortage of competent lawyers available for judicial appointments at $190,000 and, indeed, at perhaps even less considering the compensation packages and extra benefits that come with such appointments.

Perhaps that is a problem of the mandate of the commission and of the restrictions it had. Perhaps those regional differences should be reflected in salaries or expenses. The commission was operating at a bit of a disadvantage. It did not have the appropriate mandate to discuss those kinds of significant differences.

Many Canadians in the legal profession, no matter what their salary, would consider it a great honour to be appointed to a judgeship at any level. Over the past decade there have been an average of eight candidates for every opening on the bench. As I understand it, the eight candidates are previously screened for suitability. One assumes there would be at least one qualified applicant out of the eight. I have great respect for the legal profession. I believe there are many more than eight qualified candidates for one position.

The majority of my constituents, and most likely the majority of Canadians as a whole, would not consider a salary increase of almost 20% for federal judges over a three year period to be the best way to increase the quality of our justice system. We must ask ourselves how the government can justify giving federal judges a salary increase of 11.2% over and above the 8.2% increase they received in 1998.

The increase would in no way remedy the current backlog of federal court cases. That issue must be dealt with by the administration of the courts, the responsibility of which primarily lies with the judges. I have great confidence that the judges are capable of taking steps to ensure justice is dispensed in a timely fashion.

The pay increase would in no way help the thousands of front- line police officers who are at a severe disadvantage in their daily efforts to fight crime. I am not saying judges should not be well paid. They should be well paid and most Canadians would argue that they are. It is a question of whether they should be paid more than they are already.

My party has great reluctance in supporting the bill on the basis that it ignores the real problems of the Canadian justice system and the manner in which judges are appointed. That is another issue we could perhaps leave for another day.

The backlog of the courts would not be remedied by the bill. The appointment process, which many Canadians believe should be reformed to make the judiciary more independent and publicly accountable, would remain the same.

The administrators of the justice system, the provincial attorneys general, crown attorneys, police officers and members of the federal police force, the RCMP, would still be handcuffed by a lack of sufficient resources.

Perhaps nothing can be done with respect to the proposal in view of the structure and mandate of the commission and the constitutional obligations recently imposed upon parliament by the Supreme Court of Canada. However I urge all hon. members to consider a better way of dealing with the issue.

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-12, an act to amend the Judges Act and to amend another act in consequence.

The bill amends the Judges Act to implement the government's response to the recommendations made by the 1999 judicial compensation and benefits commission. Among those recommendations is a retroactive salary increase of 11.2% for 1,013 federally appointed judges. The bill is purely administrative in nature, but that is the problem.

This is the fourth time the Liberal government has sought to amend the act. During the 35th parliament the government introduced Bill C-2 and Bill C-42 and during the 36th parliament, Bill C-37, all of which were minor pieces of legislation or of little significance to Canadians.

While we all recognize the need for housekeeping bills, there have been no significant initiatives by the current Liberal government to address the serious concerns of many Canadians with our judiciary. It appears more and more that the issues parliament may address when it comes to the judiciary are merely administrative in nature.

Under the guise of the charter the courts have appropriated for themselves the right to deal with substantive policy matters. The courts have in addition appropriated for themselves the right to effectively control the ability to set their salaries, a matter which the Constitution Act, 1867, specifically left to parliament.

The decision of the courts purported to find a new constitutional obligation to require the legislatures to set up a commission to establish the salaries for provincially appointed judges. The supreme court, which was called upon to confirm this process, not only did so but included a newfound constitutional obligation requiring parliament to follow a similar process when it came to setting salaries for federally appointed judges.

Although the fiction is that parliament can exercise its own judgment in respect to the salaries recommended by the committees, in reality the judges simply overturn those legislated decisions where they disagree with them. One need look no further than the Alberta legislature for a very practical demonstration of the court's powers.

This is simply a case of judges discovering new constitutional principles that benefit themselves financially without political accountability or, as one of my constituents observed in describing the case, “the judges paying the judge's case”.

This newfound constitutional process that the judges discovered further decreased parliamentary responsibility for the expenditure of public funds and moves toward the creation of an economically independent judiciary with its own political agenda.

A recent letter to Maclean's magazine by a Mr. W. J. Jack of Innisfil, Ontario, noted:

It seems to me that members of Parliament no longer want to or can't make laws that work, so they let appointed judges do that job. If the Supreme Court is going to legislate, we won't need elections, except to vote for one person who would then appoint the members of the court. This would save taxpayers a lot of money, and we'd still have the one-man-rule system that we have today.

Coupled with the self-granting powers under the charter and an executive appointed judiciary as we now have, I would argue the courts can be and often are used to advance the political agenda of a government in a particular direction without consultation with the members of parliament who are accountable to the people of Canada and who represent their interests.

Judicial activism is all too common in our courts. Many if not most Canadians would agree that it must remain the responsibility of parliament to debate and ultimately resolve the political, economic and social issues that govern all our lives.

However over the past two decades judges supreme court justices in particular have to varying degrees engaged in a frenzy of constitutional experimentation that resulted in the judiciary substituting its legal and social preferences for those of the elected representatives of the people in parliament and the legislatures.

A leader in this judicial activism was the former Chief Justice of Canada, Antonio Lamer. Although he is now retired, the decisions he wrote or participated in will continue to impact on the principles and institutions of our democracy. Unfortunately that impact has been at an alarming cost to our democracy and to the public safety and security of our citizens.

Another member of the court has recently added his concern to the direction of the supreme court and the judicial activism of the former chief justice. Mr. Justice Bastarache has warned the nation of the dangers of the judicial government favoured by the former chief justice. In contrast to the former chief justice, Justice Bastarache has committed himself to an interpretation of the charter of rights and freedoms that pays respect to democratic principles and institutions.

The House and the people of Canada should commend Mr. Justice Bastarache and other jurists who recognize the dangers of the legal and constitutional anarchy reflected in the judgments of the former chief justice. Our democratic principles and institutions are too important to be hijacked by a non-elected political judiciary.

Let us consider for a moment a recent high profile supreme court decision that typifies the issue. In Minister of Justice v Burns and Rafay the supreme court in effect removed the justice minister's parliamentary prerogative of choosing whether or not to seek assurances before extraditing alleged criminals facing the death penalty in another country, the United States or otherwise.

Regardless of where one stands on the issue of capital punishment, the court has attempted to deprive parliament of debating the issue further. The court has overridden Canada's law as written by parliament and has chosen to push its political agenda to the forefront by opening Canada's borders to violent criminals.

That is not just my characterization. The day after the Rafay and Burns decision was delivered by the Supreme Court of Canada the lawyers for the Minister of Justice, in another related case, stood before the court and said that the impact of the decisions was to create safe havens for criminals.

According to the precedent set in previous supreme court rulings, the minister had only been required to seek guarantees when the possibility of the death penalty would shock the conscience or otherwise outrage standards of decency.

In this decision, the supreme court has attempted to reconcile its new position with its 1991 precedent. However, in actual fact it has rewritten the law. The recent ruling stipulated that the Minister of Justice was required to seek guarantees prior to the extradition of Rafay and Burns and in the future on all accused of such crimes.

Our extradition treaty with the United States has also been effectively rewritten. One might think that the practical effect of extraditing these individuals, if they are convicted in the state of Washington, is that they would face life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. That is only technically true. If they are convicted and all appeals are exhausted, they become automatically eligible for the prisoner exchange program. They then come back to Canada where the maximum sentence is 25 years before eligibility for parole and, with the faint hope clause, they can apply for parole after 15 years.

Taking into account that these individuals have already been held for six or seven years, if they were successful under the faint hope clause they would be on the streets after eight years. If in fact they are the people who brutally killed three American citizens for insurance money, the practical consequence of their crime would be eight years.

This is not an issue about the death penalty. This is the circumvention of parliament by refusing to allow parliament to have a say in the laws that govern crime in Canada. This is an abdication of our responsibility. Our responsibility has been taken away by the Supreme Court of Canada which has its own political agenda when it comes to criminal law.

In Minister of Justice v Burns and Rafay the supreme court has prevented any legislative attempt to reintroduce capital punishment in Canada. This is regardless of where one stands on the issue. Our party does not have a position on capital punishment. The court's decision effectively says that the elected people of Canada can never make the decision because it is constitutionally prohibited. The political reason given was that the practice is unjust and should be stopped. That is not a legal judgment. That is a political decision.

Again, regardless of where one stands on the issue, it is a decision for parliament and its elected representatives to make. Regardless of the convictions of the court, amending Canada's laws and treaties for policy reasons should be the responsibility of parliament and not the courts.

Former Chief Justice Lamer's judicial activism is not in harmony with the democratic principles of Canada, regardless of whether we oppose or defend the cause that the court may support. People might say that it is a good decision regardless of it being a political one.

The decisions of the court on political matters short-circuit the process, undermine the authority of parliament and bring the institution of parliament into disrepute. It is not that it insults parliamentarians, it insults the people who elected parliamentarians to make these decisions on their behalf.

While this issue is a major concern, it is far from being the only problem in our judicial system that requires the attention of parliament. Another such issue is related to the appointment process.

It is interesting to note that the last bill to amend the Judges Act, Bill C-37 from the 36th parliament, created the Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission which provided the federal government with yet another opportunity to make patronage appointments. The commission consists of three members appointed by the governor in council and it should be noted who nominates these three: One is nominated by the judiciary; one is nominated by the Minister of Justice; and one, who acts as a chair, is nominated by the first two persons nominated.

The failure of the bill to introduce any changes in the appointment process means that important and high paying positions in our court system will remain essentially part of the patronage system.

The Canadian Alliance would like to see the patronage appointment process overhauled to make it more transparent and publicly accountable. One option would be to strike a committee that would review and interview candidates whose names would be put forward to the Prime Minister. The input of the provinces, which are affected directly by decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada, is required in these matters.

Another concern I have with the bill is that the increase in pay for federally appointed judges is higher than the federal government is prepared to grant the much lower paid civil service. It lately has been the practice of the government to grant raises to senior officers in the military, senior bureaucrats and now judges while dragging its feet on a general salary increase for staff.

While we do not dispute that salaries for appointed judges and others should generally be in line with the private sector, it is apparent that the foot soldiers of our justice system are being ignored.

What we propose is an independent and publicly accountable judiciary that would act as a safeguard to protect Canadians from the arbitrary power of the state. However it must remain the responsibility of parliament, not the courts, to debate and assess the conflicting objectives inherent in public policy development.

This bill, like its predecessors, deals solely with the administrative aspects of the courts and does not address the multitude of concerns that many Canadians have with the judicial system. Therefore, my colleagues and I strongly oppose the bill.

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in December of last year, shortly after the federal election, I was going through an Ottawa Citizen article which mentioned that Canadian judges would be receiving a $19 million pay raise that would boost their income 11.2% on average to more than $205,000.

The 11.2% awarded on December 13, 2000, was according to that news article quoting a justice department lawyer a compromise between the 26.3% that the judges were asking for and the demands of taxpayers to keep costs down. Government justice lawyer Judith Bellis had taken the view that the 11.2% was in the range of reasonable.

Bill C-12, the subject of today's debate, enacts that 11.2% pay raise, thereby raising the salaries of approximately 1,013 federally appointed judges who sit on provincial superior courts and courts of appeal, as well as the tax courts and the Supreme Court of Canada.

The increase, retroactive to April 1, 2000, will raise the base salary from $179,200 to $198,000 for judges who sit on appeal courts and superior courts in each province. The salaries for the chief justices in those courts will rise to $217,000 from $196,500. The same rates will also apply to federal court judges.

The judges on the Supreme Court of Canada will remain the highest paid. The eight regular judges will see an increase to $235,700 from $213,000, while Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin's salary will jump to $254,000 from $230,200.

It is important to note that while the government considers this raise reasonable, the official opposition views it as extremely generous considering senior public servants have received raises of no more than 5.7%. As well, the pay of public servants is not indexed, while the pay and salaries of judges are. We on this side of the House, therefore, are opposed to Bill C-12.

For the information of other new members of the House, I would like to point out this is not the first time the Liberal government has tried to amend the Judges Act. In fact, this is the fourth time the Liberals have come forward and made changes to the act.

Originally in 1996, Bill C-2 and Bill C-42, both if I may paraphrase a former member of the House, were described as being nebulous, inconsequential pieces of legislation with little significance to Canadians who were genuinely concerned about their safety, as opposed to the simple administrative matters that these bills brought forward.

In April 1998 Bill C-37 was introduced to establish the judicial compensation and benefits commission. The compensation commission was set up as an independent advisory body after the supreme court ruled that judges' salaries were constitutionally protected and the previous system of setting pay was inadequate.

Bill C-37, increasing judges' salaries retroactively, provided them with an 8.3% pay increase over those two years. Translated into dollars, this meant an average $13,000 pay increase for federal judges with salaries increasing from $159,000 to over $172,000.

I do not know of any other federal public servant, or any hard-working Canadian citizen, who received a $13,000 pay increase in 1998. While the Liberal government and the Tories were voting in favour of the huge pay increase, Canadians' incomes were on a steady decline.

Members on this side of the House, with the exception of the Progressive Conservative Party, opposed the bill. Members on the other side of the House wrongfully insisted that our opposition to the bill was “the ravings of ill-informed and ill-prepared men of parliament who contributed to the ill-repute of the justice system”. The truth is that my party holds the judiciary in high esteem. We were opposed to Bill C-37 and we are opposed to Bill C-12, based on the fact that other senior public servants, lower level public employees and other Canadian workers had not and will not be awarded such generous increases.

In the same year that federal judges were being awarded these huge salary increases, comparatively Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers, who had had their salaries and wages frozen for five years, were granted an increase of 2% in March 1998, retroactive to January. A second pay increase was given to them in April 1998 and toward the end of that year they received another three-quarter per cent increase. Over the five years that they had been frozen, and in the next year of 1998, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police saw an increase of three and three-quarter per cent. They are on the front lines putting their lives in jeopardy. The average three year constable received less than $2,000 over those years.

I would be remiss if I did not mention that the former member of Crowfoot put forward an amendment to Bill C-37 that was supported and passed in the House during report stage. That amendment ensured that every four years the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights had the opportunity to review the report of the commission on judges' salaries and benefits. The task would not be left solely to the Minister of Justice as was originally contemplated by the Liberal government.

It would be negligent of me if I also did not recognize the thorough job the Senate did in reviewing Bill C-37, the pre-emptive bill to Bill C-12, and the substantive amendments that it brought forward at the upper house.

In particular, I would like to single out the efforts of Senator Anne Cools for her diligent efforts in revealing the many inadequacies of Bill C-37. Senator Cools apparently exposed the fact that Bill C-37 would effectively allow judges to set their own wages, salaries and benefits and in so doing would set up the possibility of there being a show down between parliament and the judiciary. It would allow judges to appeal parliament's decision regarding a recommendation of the salary increase put forward in the courts. Essentially the judges would have the final say over whether or not parliamentarians were giving them a sufficient raise.

Although former judicial pay commissioner David Scott said it was unlikely that judges would ever be setting their own salaries, he would not rule out the possibility of the judiciary challenging parliament's response to the commission's recommendations for a pay increase or for reducing pay.

The judiciary would have to prove, however, in a court that the refusal to increase salaries or a decision to lower them was motivated by a wish to diminish the independence of judges. Mr. Scott said that even if the judges won in such a case, the court could only declare parliament's motion on the issue void and that would result in a stalemate. As pointed out by the Liberal senator, this would “deprive Canadians of their undoubted constitutional right to parliament's control over the public purse in respect to the judiciary”.

Clearly, the control of the public purse rests with the elected members of parliament and not with the unelected members of the judiciary.

Section 100 of the 1867, Constitution Act, states in part that the salaries, allowances and pensions of the judges shall be fixed and provided by the Parliament of Canada. Clause 6 of Bill C-37 potentially abolished parliament's role in fixing judges' salaries.

Obviously we must question why the Minister of Justice at that time was so willing to bestow such potentially wielding powers on the judiciary through Bill C-37. One can only surmise, and again I use the words of Senator Cools when she said:

The real intent (of Bill C-37) is to remove parliament from the process.... There is a problem in that certain particular judges seem to crave a closeness to certain individuals in the Department of Justice and are trying to cling, closer and closer, to the executive rather than to parliament.

She went on to say to the Senate:

In other words, honourable senators, what is happening here is that 200 years of history are being turned on their head, and we are being told in this judgment that, quite frankly, judges prefer their fate to be in the hands of the executive rather than in the hands of parliament. It is a most curious and interesting subject matter.

It is more than curious and interesting, it is fearful.

Bill C-37, which was also an act to amend the Judges Act as it was originally drafted by the Department of Justice, had another problem. It created a legal right for a judge to have two spouses. The two spouses clause was meant to deal with circumstances in which a married judge, who was separated from his or her wife or husband and was living common law with another person, died. It would have allowed a judge to have both spouses, married and common law, to be eligible for the lucrative pension. In addition, the common law spouse would collect a one time payout of one-sixth of the judge's annual salary at the time of his or her passing.

Former supreme court Justice William Estey said that this particular section of Bill C-37 would “give his former colleagues on the bench the right to a kind of homemade harem. It would effectively create two separate sets of family law, one for the judges and one for everyone else”.

During debate on this legislation it was noted that the situations such as the contemplated one in Bill C-37 were rare. Therefore, questions arose as to why such a clause was put into Bill C-37. Critics suggested that this particular clause was tailor made for Chief Justice LeSage who was separated from his wife and had resided for about a year with Judge Lang. If Chief Justice LeSage were to die, the new amendment would have allowed both Judge Lang and Mrs. LeSage to qualify as his surviving spouse and share his pension.

As pointed out by Senator Cools during the debate, Bill C-37 appeared tailor fit to particular individuals. Senator Cools said “We have a situation in this country where individuals have access to the legislative writing machine”. Senator Cools said that it was very bothersome. Again, that is more than bothersome. That is a huge concern.

I understand that Bill C-37 was not the first time that the government has tailor made legislation to amend the Judges Act. Bill C-42, as mentioned earlier, also amended the Judges Act. It changed the pension scheme and working conditions of the federally appointed judiciary. In particular, it set out the terms on which Canadian judges could participate in international activities.

Although it was never explicitly admitted by the House or by the government, it was no secret that these amendments to the Judges Act arose due to the 1996 appointment of then Madam Justice Louise Arbour to the United Nations as a prosecutor for its special war crimes division.

Apparently opposition members naively agreed in June of that year, just before the House recessed for the summer, without any debate in the House, without any debate at committee, to pass Bill C-42 after being assured by the former justice minister that it was a simple innocuous housekeeping bill. It was not until the amended bill was returned from the Senate and the testimony of witnesses that appeared before the Senate committee were made known that my colleagues realized that Bill C-42, as claimed by legal experts, had “the appearance of transgressing the vital principle of judicial impartiality”, the very principle that our Minister of Justice has just spoken on.

In particular, I refer to the testimony of Professor Morton:

The government is concerned, as well it should be, with the current status of Justice Arbour and the implications of her status for those responsible at justice. The government seems to hope that by passing Bill C-42 as quickly as possible it can retroactively legitimate apparent indiscretions by Justice Arbour and possibly others—

It would appear that Justice Arbour agreed to the appointment before it had been approved by the Minister of Justice (or any other officials), thereby forcing the minister to react to a fait accompli. Furthermore, it then appears that the minister, rather than recommending to Justice Arbour that she postpone her new activities (at the Hague) pending necessary amendments to the Judges Act, sought to temporarily legitimate her actions by an order in council; and then (because the order in council is conceded to be insufficient) sought to retroactively legitimate Justice Arbour's new employment with general amendments to the Judges Act, Bill C-42, thereby forcing the hand of Parliament.

Professor Morton added:

No doubt some will say that this is nit-picking. My response is simple. If the justice minister and appeal court judges cannot be expected to comply with the letter of the law, then who can?...Indeed within the last month the justice minister himself pronounced on the meaning and the importance of the rule of the law. The rule of the law is “a living” principle that is fundamental to our democratic way of life. In substance it means that everyone in our society, including ministers of government, premiers, the rich and powerful and the ordinary citizen alike, is governed by the same law of the land.

While one section of Bill C-42 at that point in time appeared tailor made for Arbour, another section of that very same bill was apparently designed for the then chief justice of the supreme court in that it offered an unprecedented pension benefit to the chief justice and his wife at the very time when the top court was considering the most politically sensitive case of the decade, perhaps of confederation, whether Quebec had a constitutional right to secede from Canada.

The proposed changes did away with the prohibition on judicial double-dipping. Previously a retired judge received a pension equal to two-thirds of his annual salary; on average, about $104,000. When he died, his spouse collected a survivor's pension worth one-third of his salary or $52,000, provided that she was not a retired judge.

Under the new law retired judge spouses will collect both, thus receiving a total pension equivalent to their salary before retirement. The most obvious beneficiary of the change was Chief Justice Lamer and his wife, Federal Court of Canada Justice Danièle Tremblay-Lamer.

With regard to this section of Bill C-42, Professor Morton said:

Without imputing any illicit motive to anyone involved—the timing of this proposed change could not be worse.

Morton also said that sceptics would claim:

It is unacceptable that a chief justice who is about to benefit from the minister's proposed pension policy change now sits in judgment of the minister's Quebec reference—the most politically sensitive constitutional case of the decade.

In closing, I would assure the House and Canadians in general that the official opposition will closely scrutinize Bill C-12. In particular, we will review the provision of the bill that changes the annuities scheme.

I am not a financial expert. I am not an expert on annuities or the pay schedules that are put forward in the bill. Without the advantage of expert advice at this stage, what appears to happen is that the changes being made to the Judges Act allow a judge who is married for the second time to another judge after the death of his or her first spouse, also a judge, to collect both or two survivor benefits upon the death of the second spouse. One could only guess why the government is contemplating such a rare and highly unlikely situation.

As we have already mentioned, four times the Liberal government has come to make amendments to the Judges Act. We have seen time and time again where the government has tailor made legislation to fit certain individuals and certain situations. We will also assure the House and Canadians in general that Bill C-12 is not tailor made to any individuals. If it were, it would definitely compromise the impartiality of our judiciary.