Bill C-55 (Historical)

Public Safety Act, 2002

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

Business of the House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer the question of the hon. member about the business of the House for the foreseeable future. Like most people I would not want the attendance of the opposition to dwindle any further next week than it has this week, so I do not think we should venture on that ground too much.

First, I express my thanks and that of my predecessor to members on all sides of the House for their co-operation in making progress on the government's legislative program since January. I say so on behalf of myself, perhaps myself once reincarnated, and of course my immediate predecessor as well.

This afternoon we will consider government Motion No. 30 concerning the Special Joint Committee on a Code of Conduct, and we will do it tomorrow if necessary if the item has not been disposed of by then. We will then return to Bill C-58, the Canada pension plan legislation. If there is any time left, and subject to further negotiation with hon. members and officers of all parties in the House, we will then return to Bill C-55, the public safety bill which some but not all members have expressed enthusiasm in passing. Should there be time we will then return to Bill C-57, the nuclear safety bill.

It is my intention to inform colleagues about our agenda upon our return in early September. I have done that in previous years, contacting members a few days ahead of time so party critics could be available when debate resumed. I intend to do the same when the House resumes in September.

Meanwhile, Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to wish you, our staff and all hon. members my very best wishes for an interesting, fruitful and, to a point I hope, restful summer.

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?

Message from the Senate

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that some hon. colleagues in the House were inquiring earlier as a result of a point of order, which was somehow described as a question of privilege, as to what the next item on the agenda would be after the completion of the bill that is before the House.

Should I not obtain the answers on Bill C-58 that I had committed to getting to the House, which it does not look like I will get now, I will not call the bill. I will not call Bill C-58 if I cannot get the answers by the time we get to the completion of this. Instead I will call Bill C-55 as the next item.

Privilege

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, there has been a reference to a deadline made by the hon. member regarding this issue, which of course is a serious issue and I am not diminishing the importance of it. He says to buttress his argument that there is no deadline in this and it is based on the consideration which he refers to as forthwith.

Notwithstanding the fact that it is there, during the course of his presentation the hon. member might have forgotten one of the original propositions he raised in the House. It stated that it was in the chief actuary's opinion to trigger the mechanism of issuing this letter, or note which was the expression the hon. member used a while ago. I do not know, nor do I suggest the House knows yet whether the chief actuary has given such an opinion at this time.

I have asked officials to verify and to report to me. I will report to the House as early as possible. Hopefully later this day I would be able obtain that information for the benefit not only of the Speaker but of course for the benefit of all hon. members. However I do think that the triggering mechanism, which the hon. member admitted is there, is the chief actuary's opinion.

I would undertake to verify if he has given such an opinion and what the opinion is. If the chief actuary has given an opinion that in fact the triggering mechanism does not apply, the point of course is not valid. If he has not given an opinion at all, it is not valid either because the whole argument is based on the chief actuary providing that opinion, and that is the contention of the hon. member who raised the proposition in the House.

Perhaps I can assist the House and undertake that if, by the time we complete consideration of the bill now before the House, I have not obtained the information to be able to rise and give further explanation to hon. members, I would then call the other bill that is on the order paper instead, namely, Bill C-55, and call Bill C-58 at a later time, perhaps tomorrow. That would satisfy the hon. member because the proposition is not before the House given that the bill has not been called for debate and I could delay perhaps for a little while.

That being said, if anytime between now and the completion of the debate on the other bill, Bill C-53, I could rise on a point of order and give further explanation to the House, I would do so at that time.

Business of the House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that many members would have suggestions about the government business over the next few days. However, in the absence of hearing all that, I will inform the House of the following.

We will continue this afternoon tomorrow with the following: Bill C-53, the pesticide legislation, to be followed by Bill C-58, the Canada pension plan investment board bill and any time remaining on Bill C-55, the public safety bill.

On Monday we will begin with a motion by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to refer to committee before second reading the bill on first nations governance that he will introducing tomorrow, notice of which is already on the order paper. We would then turn to report stage and third reading of Bill C-54, respecting sports. We would then turn to the specific claims bill introduced earlier today and any business left from this week, that is the bills I named a moment ago.

We would also like to debate report stage and third reading hopefully of Bill C-48, the copyright legislation and, subject to some progress, I would also like to resume consideration at second reading of Bill C-57, the nuclear safety bill.

In addition, it would be the wish of the government to dispose of the motion to establish a special joint committee to review proposals made concerning the code of conduct for parliamentarians.

This is the list of legislation that I would like to see completed over the next several days.

Citizenship and Immigration

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, they have to do two things. First, they have to apologize, like the Deputy Prime Minister has said, and second, if they pass Bill C-55 they will not have that kind of problem. I can assure the House that information is placed on a network and not on hard disk, so, another scapegoat.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, if the official opposition is so eager for security, why does it not pass Bill C-55? They should support Bill C-55 because there are some issues there.

Second, when that happened we reacted immediately and I can assure the Canadian people that there is no problem regarding security. They stole some information and some computers, but it was nothing relating to important information.

Business of the House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I do not usually comment on the content of question period. We all have our own views of how good or bad they were. I will instead refer to the government's legislative program.

This afternoon and this evening we will consider the business of supply with the opposed motions and so on. That takes place as it does normally, with the later completion of the appropriations bill.

Tomorrow we will do the following business. I would like to first call Bill C-53, the pest control bill, at report stage. Once that is completed we will then call Bill C-55, the public safety legislation. I believe those two bills should complete the day tomorrow.

Next Monday it is my intention to call the report stage of Bill C-5 and third reading of Bill C-5 on Tuesday.

On Wednesday of next week and/or after the completion of Bill C-5, I would then call Bill S-41 respecting legislative language. We will consider at that point an address to Her Majesty concerning the jubilee.

Once that is completed, and in the event the House wants to continue with other business, the bills I would call next Tuesday, subject of course to consultation between House leaders, would probably be the following: Bill C-19, the environmental protection legislation; Bill C-48, the copyright bill; and possibly Bill C-54, the sports bill which I understand should be out of committee sometime within the next short while.

That is the business I propose to call after we complete the address to Her Majesty that I described.

I also intend to consult with opposition House leaders to see if it is still their wish to hold the take note debate next Wednesday on the future of Canada's health care system.

Nuclear Safety and Control Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Sherbrooke for his question. He has interpreted the dichotomy in the Liberal Party's position very well.

In Bill C-55, the government is submitted to pressure from the machinery of government, from the bureaucrats, who for dozens of years have dreamed of imposing their views and their policies on Canadians, one department at a time. Using September 11 as an excuse, the Liberal government introduced Bill C-55, saying to Canadians “Canada will be a safer place once Bill C-55 is passed”.

The question we have been asking the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport, responsible for this question, has always been the same: what could you not have done prior to September 11 that a bill like Bill C-55 would allow you to do?

Once again, based on the statements made by the Prime Minister and all of the ministers, we do not know any more. They talk about national security. Today, with Bill C-57, dealing with nuclear safety and regulations, the Government of Canada is shirking its responsibility for the safety of people who could be threatened by nuclear pollution.

This government is led and directed by its public servants. It is currently much more concerned about its Liberal leadership race than it is about problems experienced by the public. It just introduced a bill in the House in the name of security.

The only security provided in Bill C-57 is for their banker friends, who will now have no responsibility whatsoever if they decide to invest in nuclear energy. This is the security the government is providing for its banker friends with Bill C-57, while Bill C-55 is intended to provide security for all Canadians.

This is the sign of a government that, at this time, has a great many other concerns than the security of Canadians or Quebecers.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all Quebecers and Canadians, I want to thank the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel for his efforts to protect the environment in Quebec and in Canada.

I would like to make a comparison with one of the main issues that my colleague is responsible for, namely Bill C-55 on controlled access military zones. In this bill, which is brilliantly reviewed by my colleague, I cannot help but see how, on the one hand, the government is prepared to interfere with people's freedom in the name of security and, on the other hand, how it is prepared to jeopardize public safety for the benefit of the nuclear energy industry. We are well aware that nuclear energy produces waste that is difficult to control.

This is very clear. On the one hand, the government is leaning in one direction, while on the other hand it is leaning in the other direction. Who is the Liberal government trying to protect? The public or the interests of a nuclear energy program, this at the expense of public safety? I would like to hear the hon. member on this issue.

Sex Offender Registry Act

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to second reading of Bill C-333, an act to establish and maintain a national registry of sex offenders to protect our children, as proposed by the member for Langley--Abbotsford.

I am sure all of us in this place are unequivocal in expressing our support for any feasible measure that will effectively protect our children, indeed all our citizens from sexual predators. I would like to outline the efforts of the solicitor general to date on this matter.

The solicitor general has stated many times that he supports a registry of sex offenders. This nation already possesses one of the most technologically advanced criminal history registries in the world in the Canadian Police Information Centre, CPIC. The solicitor general told the House that his department would consider improvements to CPIC in the specific area of sex offences, citing concerns that CPIC was not address searchable by police officers.

In a very short period of time he met that commitment when he announced, on September 11, 2001, that a new database within the CPIC system would be created and known as the sex offender category. Further, he announced that this database would be both address and offence searchable, that it would be up and running within a year and that it would be funded completely by the federal government.

That is not all the government has done in recent years to combat the dangers of sexual predators.

In 1997 we proclaimed Bill C-55 which strengthened the dangerous offender rules in the criminal code and also created a new sentencing provision called long term offender.

As a result of these changes, prosecutors in almost every province are now aggressively pursuing dangerous offender and long term offender options. In fact, since 1997 the number of successful dangerous offender applications has doubled each year.

The 1997 legislative package also created a new category called long term offender, targeting individuals who were clearly a threat but would not meet the threshold of dangerous offender. This new designation recognized that released sex offenders who received supervision and treatment in the community experienced dramatically lower reoffending rates than an offender who entered the community at the end of his sentence without conditions for supervision or treatment.

In addition to the long term custodial term, long term offenders can be ordered to comply with a further 10 years of community supervision and conditions. This innovative measure has already resulted in over 100 long term offender orders.

In addition, another provision was created in section 810 of the criminal code called community protection orders. These are issued by a court and reviewed every 12 months to place conditions on a sex offender even when no sentence is being served.

As well, on November 17, 1994, the government introduced a national screening system to help organizations screen out child sex abusers applying for work with children by disclosing their criminal record.

None of these initiatives happened overnight. While I agree with my colleagues in the House that this is a pressing problem, cobbling together a mandatory sex offender registry without looking at all of the issues, all the details and all the facts will not result in effective legislation.

The solicitor general has taken a slightly different approach. He has asked his officials to work with all the provinces and territories to fully explore this issue, to determine what is and what is not feasible in a Canadian context and to find out where some jurisdictions have succeeded and where others have failed. I fully support this approach. It now appears that all of the provinces support this approach. Why else would they be participating fully in the federal-provincial-territorial working group on high risk offenders currently seized with this matter?

This approach makes sense. If we are going to have a registry, we want one that works, that is efficient and affordable and that is supported by all of the provinces. We want one that will recognize the impact of the charter of rights and freedoms. We want one that is not in breach of federal or provincial privacy laws. We want one that local agencies will have the ability and resources to administer and enforce. We want one for which all provinces from coast to coast can agree upon a consistent approach. Finally, we want one that will not drive convicted sex offenders underground with assumed identities and no assistance with their rehabilitation.

At the Moncton meeting last February federal ministers agreed to bring forward legislation to support a national registration process in the same time frame as the completion of enhancements to CPIC including mandatory registration of specified offenders as hon. the member for Langley--Abbotsford has referred to. They will again discuss the matter when they meet in early June a couple of weeks from now.

It is essential for senior officials to continue this important work and develop a common model before deciding how best to proceed. A detailed model would help us consider and, it is hoped, come to agreement on important matters such as cost, charter compliance, privacy issues and potential liability. We do not know how much the entire system would cost. We would prefer not to enter into a new system arbitrarily but to do so knowing what the real costs would be at all levels of government.

We must carefully address the issue in the context of a national system while recognizing that not all jurisdictions have the same needs. Without completing this work it will not be possible to decide with precision what the legislation should contain.

The bill put forward by the hon. member proposes policy and legislative options. It has support on both sides of the House although there are differences in terms of timing and detail. I congratulate the hon. member for his continuing work on the issue. Although his remarks were phrased somewhat in the negative he should not underestimate the importance of private members' business in fostering, promoting and exhorting government legislation in the House.

The work of the hon. member and other members in this place has fostered support for the type of sex offender registry now evolving within the CPIC registry system. With the co-operation of the provinces and territories we in the government hope to have in place a system of mandatory registration for certain offenders so we can make the system work as the hon. member stated earlier.

In closing, I note the importance of Bill C-333 and all private members' business in spurring the government and this place to enact better policy and legislation.

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]

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned, not only has this bill been criticized on this side of the House, not only has it been criticized by the privacy commissioner, but it has also been criticized by the Liberal member for Mount Royal.

As I was saying earlier, as recently as May 3, the member for Mount Royal stated that the new terrorism bill constitutes a troubling threat to civil liberties. So, this is rather troubling for a bill, and there seems to be some consensus on this.

From this morning's editorials, it is clear that there is a trend, and that this government would like to give the impression that it is, in theory, the defender of fundamental rights, the rights of citizens around the world. Which begs us to ask a number of questions.

In its report, Amnesty International—a fairly well known organization—points out that there are no less than six regional human rights treaties that Canada has yet to ratify.

This is rather troublesome when one considers, for example, that next Tuesday, the House of Commons will be debating a motion that I moved and that calls on the government to ratify the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, which comes under the Organization of American States, and that only nine countries, including Canada and the United States, have not ratified.

If we want to establish a free trade zone for the Americas, it seems to be fundamental to me—and I will end on this—to maintain this important balance between freedom and security, something towards which this government seems very insensitive, given Bill C-55.

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

Madam Speaker, getting back to Bill C-55, the measures it contains are rather worrisome because, as I have said, they resemble measures and laws in totalitarian countries so much that you cannot tell them apart.

We are not the only ones saying so. The privacy commissioner said so. It is rather worrisome and it is even more disturbing that certain Liberal members opposite--whose names I will not mention because it is forbidden to do so--including one member in particular, have asked for a review of the national security bill, saying that “the new anti-terrorism bill is a serious threat to civil liberties”.

As I said, it is rather worrisome to see the government introduce such measures. We need to be vigilant and remember that, yes, September 11 profoundly changed the circumstances for the United States, the relationship that may exist in terms of service delivery in different areas—

[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.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

The very best. That is it. With a blatant disregard for adjectives, adverbs or usage in French, the Prime Minister said in one single sentence, in one breath, that Canada was a country where fundamental freedoms are protected.

If it is true that fundamental freedoms are protected, I think that no government can be comfortable with Bill C-55. I wonder if there is unanimous consent to have this bill withdrawn immediately, to move on to something else and to have government go back to the drawing board.

I think that if you were to ask, Mr. Speaker, you would find unanimous consent.

Michel C. Auger, a very insightful political analyst, who sometimes criticizes sovereignists and sometimes criticizes federalists, also expressed concerns about Bill C-55. He said:

The legislation still provides for the creation of security areas under military control by the Minister of National Defence. With his signature alone, the minister could wait 45 days before having his decision ratified by cabinet. This is just one example of how the government, using the fight against terrorism as an excuse, is now restricting the fundamental freedoms of Canadians.

He used the words “restricting the fundamental freedoms of Canadians”. Is it not our duty, as parliamentarians, and not only that of the opposition, to point out that even when we fought organized crime or when the biker war went on, we never reacted by excluding the parliament and its committees, and not respecting the great fundamental freedoms?

We are concerned. We still have time to convince the government, but I think this bill should be withdrawn so that government can limit its scope.

Mr. Speaker, could you check to see whether there is unanimous consent for this bill to be withdrawn so we can move on to something else. This way, we would uphold the fundamental freedoms of Quebecers and Canadians.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on the bill as well as on the amendment and the subamendment moved by the Bloc Quebecois.

As I said earlier today, the bill is really a power grab by the federal Liberal government. It is an infringement upon the civil liberties of the Canadian people. We have to be very careful as to what powers we give ministers of the crown and what powers they can exercise without coming to parliament for a democratic vote of the Parliament of Canada.

The response to September 11 was an area where the government overreacted with Bill C-55. I have seen in the past how governments have overreacted in terms of using their power. The best example of that was the War Measures Act in 1970 which was brought in by Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. That was certainly an overreaction. It was like using a sledgehammer to shell a peanut. It was a great overreaction by the prime minister of the day. We once again run the risk of a government overreacting because of a threat of terrorism.

I remind members that we have powers under the criminal code. We have a lot of police powers in the country. The government has all kinds of powers it can exercise in terms of the military. I do not believe we should be giving it even more powers in terms of the bill before the House today.

I am very surprised that this comes from a Liberal government that historically prides itself on being a party of civil liberties, freedom of speech and democracy. I can remember all those great Liberal speeches over the years from Pierre Trudeau and many other great, small l liberals. Now they are introducing a very draconian piece of legislation that will cut off civil liberties and cut off a lot of the freedoms that we in this country have grown to accept over the years.

These powers can be abused. It could be said that it is pretty calm right now so why would the government use these powers. I remember very well that before 1970 and the attack of the FLQ, the murder of James Cross and kidnappings in the country by the FLQ, people were not talking about using extreme measures and all of a sudden the Prime Minister invoked the War Measures Act in the middle of the night. Hundreds of people were arrested during that period of time. I can remember the panic and the emotions that swept the country.

I was one of the 16 members of parliament who got up in the House of Commons and voted no to the invocation of the War Measures Act. I can remember the pressure. There were some 23 members of the NDP caucus. I am not going to name people but I recall two members of the caucus who changed their minds between the caucus room and standing here in the House of Commons. Instead of voting no to the invocation of the War Measures Act, they voted yes because of the tremendous pressure and the emotion of the moment.

The government has awesome powers under the present constitution. There is no need to give it even more powers. There is no need for a minister, the Minister of Transport in particular whoever the Minister of Transport shall be at a future time when we have a so-called terrorist threat to have these kinds of awesome powers and to exercise them without coming to parliament itself to get the permission from the democratically elected representatives of the people to exercise those powers.

I ask members across the way to think long and hard before they agree to pass the bill and make it law. I know that in the government itself a lot of people are concerned. The original bill has been withdrawn and a new bill is before the House of Commons. The new bill is not quite as draconian but it still goes too far. It is still not necessary in terms of protecting the Canadian people against any kind of a threat of terrorism.

I ask Liberals across the way to reflect upon their tradition and their history going back to the days of Pierre Trudeau and Lester Pearson and the great Liberals of years gone by. I ask them to reflect on all the speeches about civil liberties and rights and participatory democracy. They should ask themselves if they really need this kind of a bill, this kind of a project which is before the House of Commons today.

One of the members from Montreal is a great civil rights lawyer who was first elected in a byelection in the riding of Mount Royal, the former riding of Pierre Trudeau. The member has made speeches on this subject many times. He has expressed great concern about the power and the sweeping nature of the bill. We should look at his comments about why the bill is not necessary.

Those are the main reasons we are concerned about the bill. This is why I support the motion as proposed by the House leader of the Conservative Party, that 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 the parliamentary oversight and the civil liberties of Canadians, and also the subamendment of the Bloc Quebecois.

Let us pause and not give the bill second reading. At the very least, let us make sure we do not give the bill second reading before we adjourn for the summer on June 21. We will then have a chance to think about it over the summer and have some sober second thought on whether or not it is really necessary.

A real measure of a society is how much freedom parliaments will grant to their citizens. When we look around the world today, we are very lucky to live in a free and democratic society. Many people in many parts of the world do not have that. There are many emerging democracies where people are fighting for the enshrinement of a bill of rights or a charter of rights and for the freedom of speech and the freedom of mobility. Many countries in the world are fighting for that.

People in this country fought in two world wars. I had an uncle who was killed in the second world war during the invasion of Normandy. He fought for democratic rights and for a free, just and democratic society in this country. Let us not take a retrograde step. Let us not step backward and remove some of the rights we already have.

We have had great debates in the House over the years. I remember the patriation debate back in 1980, 1981, 1982 about whether or not we wanted to have a charter of rights enshrined in our constitution. We had a bill of rights for many years. The bill of rights was brought in by former Prime Minister John Diefenbaker of the Conservative Party, a great Saskatchewan parliamentarian. The bill of rights was modelled in part after this country's first bill of rights, which was brought in by Tommy Douglas, the premier of Saskatchewan back in the 1940s and 1950s. We have a long history of having a bill of rights.

For most of those years we saw the development of a bill of rights in every province, including the province of Quebec. For all those years, up until 1982, the bill of rights was not enshrined in the constitution. In 1982 we had a great debate in the House on whether to constitutionalize the bill of rights or leave it outside the constitution. The debate was to decide whether the final authority would ride with the Parliament of Canada or with the courts. That was a great debate but it really divided Canadians.

We came up with the classic Canadian compromise, section 33 of the constitution, the notwithstanding clause. Section 33 allows parliaments to override a decision of the court for a certain period of time. After a certain period of time that override dies, unless the override is renewed. I think the override goes on for three years, if I remember correctly. It says to the courts that they do have the final authority to protect our rights in this country but that they had better be cautious because there is a parliamentary override. There is a balance between the parliamentarians in the legislatures, including the national assembly in Quebec, and the Parliament of Canada being able to override the courts, but on the other hand the reason for overriding the courts has to be pretty sound and just. It is a good compromise.

We developed this kind of unique Canadian system. I have spoken in different areas. I remember speaking in Russia when I was out of politics back in 1994. I spoke about how we developed our constitution and our charter of rights. I talked about the meaning of freedom of speech, freedom of religion and the enshrinement in our constitution of minority language rights. We went through long debates and we developed a pretty nice and sophisticated balance in a very unique federal state.

I know many of my friends across the way are very concerned about freedom of speech, civil liberties and civil rights of the Canadian people. I therefore appeal to them once again to not pass the bill before the summer to better reflect over the summer about whether we really need this. Do we want to entrust these awesome powers to some future minister of transport or even the existing Minister of Transport? We can probably think of some pretty interesting ministers of transport who might be there some time in the future with these kinds of powers.

I suggest that if we were to think about the bill very coolly and very soberly we would see that we do not want it. We have the powers today under our existing laws, both federal and provincial. We have the powers now under the Criminal Code of Canada.

I again appeal to the House to pass the amendment moved by the Conservative Party and make sure we take the summer to reflect on this very serious mistake and very serious road we are going down. I hope the Minister of Justice, who is now coming into the House, will share that point of view with me.

[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.”

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

Mr. Speaker, it is important that we appreciate the motion that has been allowed to proceed to this point. I just want to quote from it. It will have the effect, if carried through by vote of the House, of not giving second reading to Bill C-55. The motion states:

...it constitutes an autocratic power grab by the Liberal government at the expense of parliamentary oversight and the civil liberties of Canadians.

Quite frankly, I could not have said it better myself. In effect that is what the bill is all about.

As I said in the House yesterday when I made some other comments about the bill, it is really an unnecessary bill. When I was reviewing it, I could not help but think of the implementation of the War Measures Act back in 1970. I was in the third year of law school. I recall the effect its imposition had on civil liberties in the country at that time, specifically on some of the groups I was involved with. I recall the chill that it cast over this entire country regarding free expression of speech and the exercising of other civil liberties and the fear that it created.

As we know historically as a result of the imposition of the War Measures Act and all we have learned from it, to a very significant degree the invocation of that act and its imposition on the province of Quebec and on the rest of the country more generally clearly came out of a sense of panic by the government in power at that time. When I look at Bill C-55, I have exactly the same sense of what the reality is. What I want to say to the government is that September 11 was nine months ago. The panic should be over by now. We should be able to stand back, take a look at the bill and realize that there are all sorts of provisions in here that are generated only by panic and not by any meaningful legislative purpose. We do not need a repeat of 1970 in this country.

I will quote from an article that appeared under the name of Ken Rubin in the The Hill Times this Monday past, May 27. This is his analysis. I think we should acknowledge the work that Mr. Rubin has done over the years in ferreting out government miscues, mistakes and, yes, abuses. We should recognize the work that he has done to better the debate in the country around a number of those issues.

Mr. Rubin stated:

Ottawa misses the boat by obsessively dealing only with potential security safety risks rather than tackling actual lethal health and environment problems including how to deal with dangerous drugs and toxic wastes. The bill strings together a host of peripheral and unrelated measures like tighter explosives regulations and prevention of unauthorized use of Defence Department computer systems, but it does not deliver the legal tools needed for building an effective public safety emergency prevention plan to deal with post-Sept. 11 threats. The bill's usefulness is questionable.

I think that it summarizes in a one paragraph statement both the dangers that are in the bill and the usefulness of the bill.

I will come back to the motion by the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, which we are debating at this point. What he is saying to the government, and I would urge the House to support him in this regard, is this: pull the bill, do a review of it, and then bring back to the House those parts of it that do have a proper purpose, a proper function. He is telling the government to get off its panic seat and drop those parts that are clearly abusive of the civil rights and, potentially, the human rights in the country and of civil liberties in general.

This is an omnibus piece of legislation. It should not be. A number of these provisions in the bill should in fact be siphoned off into individual bills. If it were to be done that way, the provisions could be dealt with more appropriately by House committees. Some of the provisions that are required could in fact probably move through this House fairly quickly.

I will use as one example a portion of the bill that probably could be dealt with fairly quickly. That is the provision that deals with the port authorities in Canada. What it provides for is that the federal government, under the amendments it is proposing in that section, would be able to fund security measures for the port authorities. I know from my own experience with the authority in Windsor that in fact this is sorely needed. It does not have anywhere near the financial ability to provide the type of security that is warranted and needed in my area. That type of an amendment and provision, if siphoned off into a separate bill, should be able to move through the House very quickly. There are a number of other provisions like that.

Speaking from the position of an opposition party, there is absolutely no way that we can support the bill in its totality as it is. That is just not possible. That would be abrogating all the responsibility we have to Canadians because there are so many provisions in here where there is the potential for the bill to be used in an abusive fashion against Canadians. In its attempt to protect us, the bill in fact does just the opposite. It exposes us to potential gross abuses by government action, again, much as we saw in the province of Quebec in 1970 with the invocation of the War Measures Act and all those useless arrests and the denial of all the basic freedoms.

There is the old adage that if we do not learn from history we are going to repeat it. One would think that the government would have learned from that experience. One would think that out of respect for one of its former leaders who fought valiantly to get us a charter of rights the government would remember that. One would think that today, rather than dealing with a bill that takes away those rights in a variety of ways, we would be standing up in this House championing legislation that does not do that, that instead provides Canadians with security but does not take away their civil rights as this bill does.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the amendment to Bill C-55 put forward by my hon. colleague from the Conservative Party.

Bill C-55 has been discussed a lot over the last few weeks. The more we look at that bill, the more we get into debate and the more we realize that we, on this side of the House, were right to speak up and oppose the bill.

From day to day, reports from international organizations are showing that there are countries, that we will name later on, and Canada is among them, that have abused a number of powers to violate freedom of speech and individual freedom.

This debate on Bill C-55 today comes at the right time because, a few days ago, Amnesty International published a rather revealing report on the measures taken by some countries with regard to the situationsince September 11. Some countries have made adjustments following that situation, but often at the expense of what is the most essential in a civilized society and a democratic society. I am referring here to human rights and freedom.

Amnesty International's report tells us that countries such as Great Britain, Canada and others have used special measures that show a total disregard for individual freedoms and human rights. Canada is on that list of countries. Some have said that Canada could even be regarded as a totalitarian country, if one looks at the essence of the bill before us. I am saying this without any fear of being judged since it is the privacy commissioner who said nearly a month ago, on May 2, with regard to Bill C-55, “Some measures are similar to those that exist in totalitarian states”.

This opinion expressed by the commissioner regarding Bill C-55 is important. A country that claims to be a champion of rights and freedoms is using situations like the one we have been experienced since September 11 as an excuse to impose coercive measures. It is a sad thing. We know that this country wants the international community to believe that it has the utmost respect for human rights.

Tuesday, we will debate a motion that I have brought forward. It will be votable, as decided by the sub-committee on private members' business. This motion asks the Government of Canada to ratify the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture.

I am making a point of indicating that we will have this debate in the House of Commons on Tuesday. I remind members that, during the first hour of debate, the government rejected the arguments presented by the Bloc Quebecois and Amnesty International, even though we had gathered 75,000 signatures of Canadians on a petition asking the government to ratify the convention.

Why I am saying that it is crucial that we ratify these conventions to protect human rights? It is so that the measures we take within our borders do not violate individual freedoms.

For many years now, Canada has behaved much too much like its neighbour to the south. For example, nine out of 34 countries--let us say 34 and not 35 because we will not include Cuba--have not ratified the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, and two of those nine are Canada and the United States.

There is a good reason why this morning, an editorial in Le Devoir , reminded us that Canada has been refusing for many years to sign these conventions. Let me quote the article by Serge Truffaut published in Le Devoir this morning. The title of his editorial was “Security vs. freedom”.

At the end, he says:

For good measure, Canada has also developed a complete series of measures. The Canadian branch of Amnesty International said it was concerned about the policies on refugees and the cowardly concurrence of Ottawa with the judicial status given to prisoners of war by the United States. Most of all, Amnesty International stresses the fact that eleven years after becoming a member of the Organization of American States, Canada has still not signed one of the six regional treaties on human rights.

On the international stage, the Prime Minister boasts about being an advocate of human rights; Canada is about to become part of the free trade area of the Americas; therefore, I think that we should respect fundamental human rights.

Too many countries are still going this way, which is, to me, totally unacceptable. That is why this morning, as my hon. colleague from Champlain said, Michel C. Auger, among others, felt compelled to speak out about the deplorable current situation in Canada.

By the way, Canada is not the only country going this way. There are, naturally, our neighbours to the south and Great Britain, which are taking coercitive measures that violate freedoms.

In his editorial this morning, Michel C. Auger says the following—and I will read only the introduction:

National security and the fight against terrorism are becoming, just about everywhere in the world, the best excuses to violate fundamental rights.

In his article, he alluded to Amnesty International's report, and he added:

This is a warped sort of logic, as if we were saying that the best way to guarantee freedoms was to restrict them.

Since I have only one minute left, I want to add that we must have a global vision of the situation relating to the events of September 11 and we must go beyond these events. We must establish a real balance in Canada between freedom and security, but Canada has yet to understand that.

There is still time, since we are still considering Bill C-55, to take measures to fully reach this fundamental objective which is, obviously, to guarantee the national security of Canada while respecting individual freedoms and fundamental rights.

[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.

[The Speaker]

The Chair is prepared to make a ruling on the acceptability of the amendment introduced earlier today by the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.

I must begin by saying that the Chair has concerns regarding this amendment.

These concerns arose particularly out of the colourful language the hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough chose to incorporate into the amendment. To an independent Chair it is always a shock to see language like this in a motion before the House.

However I have survived the shock and I have decided to examine some of the precedents I know the hon. member will be interested in hearing about, some of which were found in Marleau and Montpetit in the section describing the acceptability of reasoned amendments.

I refer hon. members to a situation that occurred in 1971. The reference can be found on page 7764 of the Hansard for that date. The hon. member for Edmonton West, Mr. Lambert, proposed an amendment to a bill on income tax.

The amendment he moved reads as follows:

That all the words after “That” be struck out and the following substituted:

“this House deeply concerned with unacceptable levels of inflation, persisting unemployment and stagnant industry and conscious of the necessity for meaningful tax reform declines to give second reading to a bill which does not provide sufficient stimulus to the economy of Canada with appropriate tax cuts and incentives, does not contain adequate tax exemptions and is not calculated to materially improve business and labour conditions in Canada now or in the foreseeable future.”

The amendment provoked a lengthy debate on its procedural acceptability following which Mr. Speaker Lamoureux indicated his concerns about the acceptability of the amendment but ultimately decided to admit it. He said among other things:

Hon. members have recognized that it is difficult for the Chair to rule on the procedural aspect of reasoned amendments. Hon. members who have participated in this very interesting procedural debate have suggested, or some of them have, that it is becoming increasingly difficult to propose acceptable reasoned amendments. I cannot entirely agree with this suggestion. If hon. members will look into the records of our House of Commons they will note that during most of our parliamentary history so-called reasoned amendments have been proposed on rare occasions only. It seems that only during the last few years have members started to use this device, that is, the device of reasoned amendment, on second or third reading of bills.

Obviously that was then and this is now. However the fact is that we do have these a little more often but normally the amendments are ones for the six month hoist or that the bill be sent to a committee or not be accepted for some specific reason.

The hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough moved:

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.”

As I indicated at the outset, I have concerns regarding the terms used by the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough in the text of his amendment. Despite this, and with some reservation, I have decided that the amendment was in order and I am now putting it to the House.

Accordingly, the debate is on the amendment.

[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”.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time I speak to Bill C-55. Unfortunately, as consideration of the bill progresses, more and more concerns are raised, and our support for the bill, as a party, is decreasing.

On several occasions, I brought up the issue of controlled access military zones. There are numerous other aspects of the bill with which we have problems. As the debate unfolds, more people are taking position against the substance of the bill.

The privacy commissioner made comments recently. Just this week, while I was part of a delegation for NATO, Amnesty International published a very interesting document on the evolution of this issue in various parliaments. The Government of Canada made the list of parliaments which are tightening their grip and limiting freedom of expression and civil liberties in general. Amnesty International is very concerned about that.

I would like to come back once more to the areas of limitation, which is the crux of the matter as far as we are concerned. There is also the issue of information which will circulate very widely within various government agencies. There is also the issue of interim orders through which the minister and the governor in council will be able to do almost anything they want.

For now, I will focus on controlled access military zones. This part of the act does not make sense, in our view, and I will explain why.

First, one person, the chief of the defence staff, will make a recommendation to a single individual, the Minister of National Defence. Imagine what this means in the present context: we have a new defence minister to whom it could be recommended to create a controlled access military zone.

I often give this example in my speeches. He can suddenly decide to create a very large zone around the naval reserve building in Quebec City and including, for example, all of Old Quebec. Under the bill now before us, the minister would have the mandate and the power to do so on his own, without consulting the governor in council. Without any consultation, he could say, for reasons known only to him, “I am creating a controlled access military zone in Old Quebec, and here is why I have made that decision”.

He could also decide not to say a word to anybody. That too is provided for in the bill. People could be in a controlled access military zone without even knowing it. It is true not only for people, but also for their property, their cars, and even their pets, I believe. If your dog bites a military person in a controlled access military zone, you could be prosecuted. You could be forcibly removed from such a zone, which is sometimes done in a quite violent fashion. Once the military is given the mandate to control a controlled access military zone, it will do so its own way. When told to remove somebody from that zone, it will not necessarily do it tactfully.

The minister has complete discretion. The legislation says that this will be done in a reasonable fashion. There are 301 members in the House of Commons and there are probably as many definitions of the term reasonable. Therefore, the minister can, in a reasonable fashion, establish a zone and specify its dimensions, the effective period of designation and whether it will be renewed or not. A single person has the power to do that.

What constitutes a severe blow to the rights and freedoms in that regard--I was referring to the little dog biting a soldier's leg--is when someone gets thrown out by force without knowing he was inside a military zone. He will also be told “It is just too bad, sir, but you cannot sue the Crown. You cannot sue the federal government if you were inside that zone, even unknowingly, for damage caused to you”.

Of course, the bill provides that Treasury Board may compensate a citizen, but this is discretionary. If the Treasury Board says “No, I do not want to compensate you for the damage caused to you” and if you want to sue the government, you cannot because that is what is provided for in the bill.

We feel that the bill really goes too far. We are not alone in saying so. The privacy commissioner says the same thing. I think many opposition parties do too. I think some Liberal colleagues who take the charter of rights and freedoms seriously should oppose the bill. Unfortunately, we have not heard a lot from them so far.

I admire the courage of the government members when they are able to rise on a basic principle to say they disagree. Indeed, we were recently given the full violin treatment for the 20th anniversary of the charter of rights and freedoms. In this regard, it is quite simple. The bill is a direct attack on the charter of rights and freedoms.

In several of my speeches, I have already said that it will not be long before this bill, once passed, is challenged in court. Some people will challenge it on the grounds that it violates the charter of rights and freedoms. I think these people will be right to do so. As the bill stands, it is quite likely that the courts will agree with whoever challenges it.

Consequently, I believe that the government went too far. We remember the days following the terrible events and the awful disaster of September 11. Everyone here in the House was saying “The people must not be deprived of their freedom, because the terrorists will have succeeded”.

In all my speeches, I said that the terrorists succeeded in convincing governments to restrict rights and freedoms. I believe this is unacceptable in our context.

It is not too late. The bill will certainly be referred to a committee. I was away from the House for a few days because I was travelling with NATO. I am anxious to see what type of committee will consider this bill. This is an omnibus bill. It deals with transportation. Indeed, it is the Minister of Transport who is sponsoring the bill. However, it also deals with national defence and the solicitor general. This bill affects several acts.

So it will not be too late to suggest some amendments. However, the way it is currently worded and drafted, it is impossible for us to agree with this bill. At this point, the best thing for the government would be to withdraw it and go back to the drawing board again to ensure that it does not allow terrorists to restrict the rights and freedoms of all of western society. This is very important, in my opinion.

If the government does not do so, it will have to be open to several amendments. The Bloc Quebecois is definitely opposed to the bill as it stands. It will take several changes before the Bloc Quebecois can say at third reading “We support this type of bill that restricts the rights and freedoms of the citizens of Canada and Quebec”.

Government Contracts

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to respond to my first business question since I came, as I said, back home again.

Today we will continue with the debate on second reading of Bill C-55. This would be followed by report stage and third reading of Bill S-34, the royal assent bill, followed by consideration of a minor technical amendment made by the Senate to Bill C-23, the competition legislation.

Tomorrow we plan to resume business where it leaves off today, with Bill C-15B, the criminal code amendments, as a backup, a bill which I know people are very enthusiastic about supporting.

In any case, it is my intention to call Bill C-15B as the first item of business on Monday.

On Tuesday, subject to progress made earlier, we will commence the report stage of Bill C-53, the pest control legislation. In the evening the House will be in committee of the whole on the Public Works and Government Services estimates, pursuant to our new rule.

Wednesday we plan to debate second reading of a bill respecting nuclear safety about which I gave information to House leaders yesterday. The bill will be introduced at the beginning of the week.

Thursday of next week, that is to say a week from today, shall be an allotted day, the last of this supply period which means, and I say this for the benefit of all hon. members and their plans for that day, that the House will sit into the evening or could sit as late as the evening, depending of course, to consider the main estimates and the appropriation act based thereon.

I want to thank all colleagues, if I can say so in conclusion, for their kind words upon my return as Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

Public Safety Act, 2002

[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.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that last statement pretty much sums up what a good number of us feel should be happening with the bill. It leaves no doubt as to what we think about it.

I am once again pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-55. I am not speaking on the amendment to Bill C-55 and this is what has been happening day after day. We are still on the original bill. The other amendment has not been put into place yet, so we will wait to see what happens. I too would like to see the amendment of my colleague from the Conservatives endorsed, because it would accomplish what we hope to do with the bill.

As many speakers have mentioned, the bill reflects a number of areas and as a result has created concern in that many prospective areas as well. I think it has also made it hard for the ordinary person to understand just what exactly the bill is intended to do. It would affect areas in: national defence, Canadian air transportation, marine safety, aeronautics, biohazards, hazardous products, the Food and Drugs Act, and exports and imports. It would affect numerous areas, but what still seems to be missing in the whole scheme of things is some real hardcore evidence that there would some real changes to security.

We have a situation whereby firefighters, for instance, attend most hazardous fires or explosions or different things that happen within our country and the government has done little or nothing to ensure that there is a program in place, that there is proper training, that there are emergency responses. Very little is happening in that regard. There certainly was an opportunity to have that addressed within the bill, but it was not done. Apart from the airport security agency itself, there are no real specifics as to how we will see changes in that security, apart from just collecting money to supposedly provide it but not really do that. There really has been nothing concrete to ensure the security of people in Canada.

One of the greatest areas of concern, and I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you are well aware of this because you have spent a number of weeks hearing comments about it, certainly is the military zones that are suggested, the issue of privacy and freedom and democracy for Canadians. Numerous speakers and numerous Canadians in general have mentioned that they do not want to see their lives affected in such a way that they become the criminals. They do not want their rights infringed to the point that they are suffering more than the terrorists are.

I know that the solicitor general feels that these broad, sweeping powers for CSIS and the police are somehow supposed to improve things as far as security goes. He has had his little back and forth discussions with the privacy commissioner on this issue, but the general consensus out there is that this new legislation would impose a stronger degree of penalty on ordinary, innocent people than it would on the criminals. Innocent people would suffer more from this than anyone else.

We have rules in place now respecting search and seizure and investigation. We have good rules in place right now. There is nothing to stop the RCMP or CSIS from doing this kind of investigation. It is beyond me why we have to somehow give these broad, sweeping powers so that they could literally investigate anyone at will.

I have been cutting out clippings over the last number of weeks and I have with me just a small portion of those clippings about the concerns that are being raised. I just want to read a couple of comments to the House, which state:

By such all-inclusive reasoning, the government could justify anything that might conceivably boost public safety, such as random searches of cars and people, the opening of personal mail and unlimited access to personal bank accounts and computer files.

While this sort of thing just might catch a criminal or non-custodial parent trying to abscond with a child, it would be much more likely to fill police files with information about thousands of law-abiding citizens instead. It would also increase the likelihood that honest people with the same name as a suspected criminal would be detained and questioned by police.

The solicitor general's response to the privacy commissioner was to suggest that the privacy commissioner was overreacting. I want to read a comment made by the privacy commissioner in response to the solicitor general's comments. He said that since some terrorists did not have a criminal record and could be travelling under an alias or using forged documents, authorities needed access to all available intelligence to identify people who could be potentially violent or could have ties to terrorist groups.

In his letter yesterday, Mr. Radwanski, the privacy commissioner, said that these histrionics were deeply misleading since the sort of warrants covered by the bill could apply to more than 150 criminal code offences, including many such decidedly non-violent as fraudulently altering brands on cattle, taking possession of drift timber, unauthorized use of a computer, et cetera. He went on to say, more seriously, that he was not aware of any significant number of instances, if any at all, where wanted murderers, kidnappers or armed robbers had taken actions on board aircraft that posed a threat to security.

No one for a second has suggested that if we find a murderer or someone with a warrant out on them that they should not be arrested. However it is beyond comprehension to suggest that we should be able to check every public list of people to see if maybe there is a criminal among them. I mentioned this once before. Should the RCMP have access to the list of all hospital patients just in case they might find someone with an injury that they may be able to associate to something?

Those are the types of things that are at risk here. The freedom and democracy of all Canadians is what is at risk. Under no way, shape or form should innocent people be penalized more than the terrorists.

Numerous colleagues in the opposition have commented on the fact that we believe the situation on September 11 was handled with extreme professionalism and the areas of concern were addressed. It was not as if the ministers or the powers that be who were in place could not do what they needed to do after September 11. There was absolutely nothing to stop them. We have rules in place that give them the authority to check on criminals. We have rules in place to allow, on reasonable grounds, the issuance of warrants, searches or whatever needs to be done. No one would argue that.

What we have here before us is a bill that was intended quite frankly to pacify and somehow give a feeling that everything will be better, but it will not be better.

I am not convinced the legislation will do any good as far as security goes. Furthermore, as far as the sweeping powers that would be given to CSIS and the RCMP, the CSIS director himself has stated that he does not believe there would any more convictions under this legislation than there would have been otherwise.

Why on earth would we want to penalize innocent people and make them suffer, which would be the result if this legislation is passed, when ultimately we will not be able to convict the people we need to convict: the terrorists and the criminals? Under no circumstances should ordinary, innocent people be criminalized or put to any kind or harassment or intimidation as a result of the legislation.

All members of the House need to be greatly concerned about that. I am extremely pleased that a good number of opposition members have recognized that and have made a point of being here to speak to the issue.

[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.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a while ago I had the opportunity to speak on Bill C-55. After that, I received two phone calls from women's groups, ones that represent not just Quebec, but all of Canada. They are listening as we speak, and I send them greetings. They have been so kind as to indicate to me the position of these two groups as far as this debate is concerned.

I will try to convey what they think in a polite, honest and transparent manner. I have no prepared text and I will try to reflect what they think as faithfully as possible. Anyone wishing to verify this can have the names of the two women's groups.

This morning I was saying that women are greatly concerned about the security of their children and families. There is no problem there. They realize that Bill C-55 arises out of the events of September 11, but they express outrage at the haste with which this bill is being debated in the House, when they have been demanding for ages that their safety be ensured in the face of the violence they have to deal with constantly.

They also express some skepticism as far as the intentions of this bill are concerned. I am reporting what they told me. They see it as official hypocrisy, for the simple reason that they are well aware that the women of Afghanistan had been living with terrorism for more than 20 years without any reaction by the international community until the events of September 11.

These women pointed out to me that we live in the era of globalization. This morning I consulted yesterday's news clippings. One of them read “Globalization: the phenomenon of prostitution”. This phenomenon exists in Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto. We know that these are the hubs for it. When a girl services dozens of clients a day, her security is of no importance.

They also pointed that we in Canada are currently facing a horrifying situation of dealing in weapons, drugs and women. All of this is connected with organized crime. There is no law to ensure the safety of women and children in this context.

When a bill such as Bill C-55 on public safety is introduced, these women feeling it is lacking in judgment. How will this bill provide any more safety for women, when there is no law in place at this time to protect them from violent men, or violent gangs which can at any time terrorize or hurt their children?

A spokesperson for one of these groups told me that these women had no faith in this bill. The government introduces legislation to deal with hazardous products, but not with men who are a danger to children and women. Why is that? There is a lot of talk about legislation on sexual predators, but none is as harsh as this one.

Yesterday, these women watched the House of Commons debates on television. Even the Prime Minister downplays violence against women. Yesterday, these women expressed outrage. It had escaped my attention, but women are very vigilant about this issue, and they heard the Prime Minister try to defend himself or one of his ministers, by saying “One could ask a member whether he beat his wife yesterday”. The women who called me earlier were really outraged.

They told me that the Canadian parliament was passing a bill whose harshness the government was never able to justify. But does violence against women and children, which is being downplayed, not justify very strict legislation with no loopholes? If the Canadian government cannot ensure the safety of women and children in its own jurisdiction, how will it ensure public safety?

This is in reference to what I said earlier in the day. I wanted those who are listening to us to know about this. When two women's groups phone to say “Perhaps this is worth mentioning”, I think it is important.

I want to make one last comment. I was reading the press review for today, May 30, including an article published in La Presse , under the title “Hells Angels Invited to Queen Jubilee”. Since we have very close ties with Great Britain, these women told me “What assurance do we have that, some day, the Hells Angels will not be invited here, in Canada, and that their actions will not be condoned?”

As we know, many women work for the Hells Angels, who control prostitution. How many Hells Angels have already killed women and children, planted bombs that killed women and children? All this makes us wonder.

I also want to salute these two women's groups for giving me an opportunity to rise and to talk about their daily lives. We, who are responsible for the status of women, often need the support of women's groups who tell us “This is what it is like in real life, in our everyday life”.

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

I am honoured to have an opportunity again to speak to this important piece of legislation.

I listened carefully to the debate of other members and I think a theme of alarm at least on the opposition benches is being raised as to the far reaching and extraordinary powers the bill places in the hands of the government but perhaps of more concern, a single minister within the government.

The bill has far reaching and long term implications for the country. It touches on no less than 20 pieces of legislation, some of which I would suggest should have been dealt with separately. As is often the case, we see legislation introduced in an omnibus format that lumps numerous unrelated issues together. That is true to perhaps a lesser extent in this particular bill but I want to mention for the record some of the elements of the legislation that touch on previous and existing bills. These include the Quarantine Act, the Pest Control Products Act, the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, the Canada Shipping Acts, the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, the Radiation Emitting Devices Act, the National Defence Act, the Marine Transportation Security Act, the Export and Import Permits Act, the criminal code and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

Let us not beat around the bush. This is a comprehensive bill. It brings about new powers and a new level of concentration of power within the hands of the government. A further concern is the traditional checks and balances, the traditional role of parliament which is further bypassed and marginalized by the form and direction in which the legislation is brought in.

I would not go so far as to use the words of the federal privacy commissioner who termed this type of bill totalitarian when discussing aspects of the legislation. I would not go so far as to even use some of the language of the privacy commissioner in informing Canadians of his legitimate concerns. Yet this is coming from an impartial parliamentary watchdog, someone who is mandated to review bills, situations and actions of government. He specifically stated that there is overriding concerns that should give reason for pause and cause all Canadians to take a closer look.

My fear, as is the fear of other members, is that it has not been the case. This debate is hopefully giving Canadians a window on what the ramifications might be. There are a number of ways in which the bill will impact directly on individual civil rights, individuals' freedom of mobility and their right to privacy. The bill represents another seriously flawed piece of legislation.

Perhaps of note is the necessity of the legislation. Do we need it? Why do we need it? Is there not existing protections that have us covered and at the same time provide protection and checks and balances?

I mentioned the Emergencies Act. There has been no clearly articulated position from the government as to why there is an insufficiency, gap or necessity, given the current parameters of the Emergencies Act, to justify bringing in this new bill. I will dwell for a moment on that and give a brief comparison of what the Emergencies Act and Bill C-55 can actually do so that there is a context.

Bill C-55 has no other objective than to give ministers more arbitrary power that would come in the face of a real threat. That is to say the premise or starting point is that a real threat has to exist. This is the issue that was going to no doubt lead to a disruption, threat, perceived or real impact on Canadians' lives. However the legislation that currently exists, the Emergencies Act, allows for a swift and decisive response from government.

The Emergencies Act is a declaration of an emergency, the starting point. It becomes effective immediately upon proclamation, immediately upon the government declaring that such a state exists. The issue also goes to parliament within seven days. Within seven days, not 45, that issue must be before parliament.

Even if parliament is not sitting it should be recalled for a reasonable response. Parliament could then debate the declaration of the emergency immediately and have an opportunity to either vote or endorse the invoking of the emergency.

Every order or regulation that comes out of the Emergencies Act must go before parliament within two sitting days. There would be an exemption for an exempt or classified order. That is reasonable given the circumstances. If the military determines that it is of such grave and pressing concern that it be kept secret, so be it. However all of these issues would be sent to parliament and an all-party parliamentary review would occur and could be sworn to secrecy.

Parliament could revoke or amend any order or regulation. That is a check. That is an effective ability to involve parliament, the democratic process and the people of Canada. That is the state of the current legislation that we have today. Legislation is in place if an issue were to come before this country of the magnitude and gravity that would warrant an emergency being declared. I again ask the rhetorical question: Why do we need Bill C-55 if that is the case? Bill C-55 would allow the government to circumvent those checks and balances that are currently in place under the Emergencies Act.

By comparison Bill C-55 would also come into effect immediately. There would be no declaration of emergency being proclaimed by the government nor would the matter come before parliament. Parliament is cut out of the loop. Parliament has no vote on the existence of the determination of the emergency. There are no interim orders to be tabled in the House until the first 15 days in which the House is recalled. We do not know when that recall might occur. There is no debate on the state of emergency. Parliament cannot revoke or amend any emergency orders.

Under the Emergencies Act parliament is the place where the orders would be debated, amended, defeated, approved or reviewed. The government would be held accountable under the current legislation. Under Bill C-55 parliament is placed on the sidelines and the orders that are brought forward are not subject to parliamentary scrutiny. We become a clearing house, a publishing place for the government's decision. The government is not accountable directly under Bill C-55.

Putting this much power into the hands of the minister does nothing to benefit Canadians. On the other hand it does a great deal more to move toward this trend of arbitrary power. It cloaks the government in greater secrecy. In the current environment, is this something Canadians should feel comfortable with? They should be asking themselves if they feel that they can trust the government to make that kind of arbitrary, unchecked decision and are they prepared to live with it. That would be the effect of Bill C-55. It would bypass the scrutiny that would occur in this place in the most basic of circumstances.

Canadians will come to the conclusion that they do not feel comfortable with the bill. It then begs the question: Does the bill represent another seriously flawed piece of Liberal legislation, the type of legislation we have seen in the past that is stubbornly clung to by the government?

Bill C-68 was a perfect example of a registry system that quadrupled in expense from its original intent. It has not worked. It has not protected Canadians. It was presented to Canadians in a mendacious and incorrect way. Clearly, if the bill is in place it would be difficult to revoke and bring back those powers. The Liberal government has demonstrated that it will not change its mind and admit there was any wrong.

This power concentration and power grab continues. The bill is another example of that. The changes to the National Defence Act are the best example. They have been highlighted by many members. The very arbitrary ability to locate and designate a controlled military zone and all of the powers that flow from that decision are scary. There is a need to look at the bill in greater detail to bring about the changes that would ensure the protection of Canadians. Interim orders made by one minister can have a drastic and detrimental effect on the average Canadian's life.

It is for that reason I would like to bring forward an amendment to the bill. 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, because it constitutes an autocratic power grab by the Liberal government at the expense of parliamentary oversight and the civil liberties of Canadians”.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member of the New Democratic Party who spoke earlier talked about the impact of this bill on various sectors, including health.

He was wondering, and rightly so, about the need to consult the health committee on this issue. He only mentioned that one sector, but he could have mentioned nearly all departments because, if we take a close look at this bill, we see that it can amend 20 other existing acts, including some that are very recent. What he just said makes sense. Indeed, it would be worth it to consult the public and the committees more.

The other point I want to raise concerns an article by Michel C. Auger. My colleague from Drummondville mentioned it also. In this article, which was published this morning, he talks about an act that deals with safety but that does not respect human rights or that could violate certain human rights.

Last week, I had the opportunity to hear the last presentation by the federal government's human rights commissioner. In answering questions, she told us that she herself had gone to Geneva this year to appear before the Human Rights Commission because there was some concern about the public safety legislation that the present government wants to pass to restrict human rights here, in Canada.

As member of the Sub-Committee on Human Rights and International Development of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, I often see and hear members, ministers, members of this government promote human rights in other countries, and rightly so.

The problem is that, before promoting anything, one should be beyond reproach in that area. It so happens that the commissioner responsible for human rights within the federal government felt the need to say, in Geneva, before the Human Rights Commission, that, in her opinion, certain aspects of the new safety laws, including Bill C-55, were cause for concern.

Being a few weeks from retirement, she probably felt freer and more independent than ever to speak out, because it is well known that retired people, or even public servants who have been retired for a number of years, feel very free to speak out.

Certainly, when one works for the public service and wants to take a position that may not please the authorities, the party in office, there is sometimes a tendency to self-censorship. I am not saying that it happens all the time, but, it takes a rather rebellious mindset —

[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—

[Inky Mark, Canadian Alliance, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-55 and on the amendment.

The bill is unnecessary, as was Bill C-36. Bill C-36 was unnecessary because we already had a new version of the War Measures Act known as the Emergencies Act. That is the purpose of the Emergencies Act. There is no reason the government cannot invoke the Emergencies Act during such times.

Since being passed by both Houses, how many times has Bill C-36 been used to fight terrorism? It has not been invoked once. I voted against Bill C-36 because it is bad legislation. It jeopardizes the values of a free society under the smokescreen and rationale of security. The real way to make Canada more secure is to have good intelligence, good police forces, good immigration policy and good customs and border personnel.

Bill C-55 falls under the same category as Bill C-36. If Bill C-36 has not been invoked up to this point in time why would the House and the country need another bill called Bill C-55, a so-called second version of Bill C-36 under the guise of national security?

Like Bill C-55, the Liberal government's gun control bill, Bill C-68, was not necessary. A report by the Library of Parliament to the House committee stated that Bill C-17, the former Tory bill for gun control which was brand new at the time, had not had time to be implemented before the Liberal government started another gun control bill. The Liberal government did not listen and we ended up with the big mess we have today under Bill C-68.

Canada has always had gun control. Handguns have been registered since 1934. Will registering all firearms make the country safer? Of course it will not. We all know that. Let us look at the statistics. Over the last four years since Bill C-68 was implemented gun murders have doubled. An Ontario study showed that 80% to 90% of illegal handguns are Saturday night specials that come over the border from the U.S.A. Canadians who own legally registered handguns are not potential criminals. This is an illustration of how unnecessary Bill C-55 would become.

Through Bill C-68 the government has criminalized all Canadians who use firearms legally. Unfortunately, Bill C-68 has divided Canadians along urban-rural lines. As has been said many times, rural Canadians use firearms as necessary tools in their culture and environment.

Canadians support gun control but not the kind created by the Liberals to gain votes from urbanites. There has been little accountability from the Liberal government regarding gun control expenditures. Other than buying votes and creating jobs in Liberal ridings the government's expenditures of over $700 million have done absolutely nothing for the health and safety of Canadians. I am comparing Bill C-68 to Bill C-55 because I hope doing so will foreshadow the bill's possible effects.

Cancer kills many more people annually in Canada than firearms. In 1999 there were 536 homicides of which 165 were shooting deaths. In 1997 there were 58,703 deaths due to cancer. The Liberal government has spent over $700 million on gun control in the last eight years. How much do members think the government has committed to cancer research? Since 1992 the government has committed only $25 million to breast cancer research. In the 54 years since 1947 only about $700 million has gone to cancer research. Those are pretty lopsided figures.

There is something wrong with this picture. Statistics Canada tells us we are 320 more times likely to die of cancer than by being shot. Is it not ridiculous that the Liberal government has spent over 25 times more on gun control than breast cancer?

Bill C-55 would give the optics of security. However it would do nothing more than give Canadians a false sense of security. It would attack whatever was left of the freedoms of being a Canadian and living in a democracy.

Part 6 of Bill C-55 would impact every firearm owner in Canada. In amending the Explosives Act it would give the government the right to regulate and put an end to the making, purchasing, possession and use of all ammunition. It would take us back to a time when one had to write in a permit book how much and what kind of liquor one purchased at a vendor. Will the next step be to control the amount of bullets and empty cases one can have in one's home? Part 6 of the bill defines “inexplosive ammunition component” as:

--any cartridge case or bullet, or any projectile that is used in a firearm--

Would plumber's lead come under this class? It has the potential of being made into bullets. Perhaps lead fishing weights and jigs would qualify. How about shotgun wads, felt pads and patches? I do not imagine too many Liberals even know what a patch is.

How would part 6 of Bill C-55 protect Canadians from terrorists? Terrorists would keep bags of bullets and empty cartridge cases hidden. As far as I am concerned, poor unsuspecting law-abiding Canadians would be the victims of another Liberal bill much like Bill C-68 and Bill C-36. With laws like C-55 why would law-abiding firearms users or any other Canadian trust the Liberal government?

The biggest problem in Canada is that the Liberal government thinks it knows what is best for Canadians. However it does not listen very well. We have heard over and over again that in Canada we have government by one Liberal. It is not far from the truth. Is it surprising to see the Liberal government embroiled in corruption charges in recent weeks?

The government pays only lip service to the needs of Canadians. Let us look at our problems in softwood lumber and agriculture. Europeans receive 56 cents on the dollar in subsidies. The Americans will end up with the same. The poor Canadian farmer fighting to survive receives only nine cents on the dollar in subsidies.

Like Bill C-68 and Bill C-36, Bill C-55 is nothing more than a snow job and a power grab. Canadians need to wake up before it is too late. Canadian values are being attacked daily by the Liberal government. It is time to change the government.

[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.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the previous speeches in this debate and I found them interesting.

We must stop and think about what we are about to do here in parliament. I invite members across the way, who are rather silent, to say their piece. I question their ability to defend the merits of this bill, since very few of them are taking the floor these days.

We are reviewing a bill through which parliament, the elected representatives in this House, will put in the hands of one single individual extraordinary powers of nearly unprecedented scope.

Yes, I heard the last comments and, without getting into this debate, I would say that the trauma caused by the War Measures Act and the abuses it brought is still felt in Quebec.

The bill would give a single individual considerable powers, such as the power to designate controlled access military zones, with all the risks this involves for the rights of people in such zones, not to mention the abuses that could occur with regard to the choice and the size of a zone, and the reasons for doing so.

In passing Bill C-55, parliament would give up its responsibility to have a say in such a situation, by giving a lot of power to a single individual who would not be required to follow the usual legislative process. Again, that person would not be subject to the usual requirements when taking such extraordinary measures, whether or not they are extraordinary.

This is a concern. We have a new defence minister, but a few weeks ago we had a really worrying situation when the military chain of command failed to inform the Prime Minister that Canada was taking prisoners; supposedly it was an error in judgment on the part of the defence minister.

This was the government's defence. This person made a serious error in judgment, because the whole canadian position in an extremely important debate in the international arena, namely the debate on the status of prisoners, was affected as a result. Even though this person was removed, this could very well have been the same one; anyhow—

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

One minister.

What this means is drive-by martial law. The zone can be established wherever the minister parks a military vehicle. Anyone can be forcibly removed from a military zone. The penalty for contravening a controlled access military zone is a fine or a year in prison.

The minister's designation is not subject to the Statutory Instruments Act. The minister will not have to ensure that the designation is authorized by other statutes, and that it does not breach the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is an extraordinary power, an unlimited power, which the government wants to give the Minister of National Defence. It is a power which could establish martial law anywhere in Canada.

As I have said, this could be in the National Assembly of Quebec, or on the grounds of Alberta's legislative assembly. It could be anywhere at all. This power is in the hands of this government and it will not be subject to the limits set out in the legislation governing the government's activities in other cases.

I raised these matters, not only in the House, but also in a letter some days ago to the Prime Minister. On May 21, I received a letter from the Prime Minister telling me not to worry, to be happy, that there was no problem. Does the House actually believe that a government that would send Alfonso Gagliano to Denmark would abuse its authority over military power? That is the essence of the letter.

Let me quote two or three portions of the letter. He addresses my argument that we do not need this law because we already have the Emergencies Act. The Prime Minister, in his letter dated May 21, said: “The Emergencies Act is a means of last resort”.

Does that not put into a very interesting context the frequency with which the government intends to use the power it would have under Bill C-55? He said the government would use the Emergencies Act as a last resort, and that is not enough. Therefore the government is asking for a power where parliament has no control. It is a power it would use as a first resort, not a last resort, but whenever the mood struck it. It would use this terribly abusive instrument to establish marshal law wherever the Minister of National Defence chose to establish it, or to abuse the other provisions in the bill, without any consultation with his colleagues .

In my time here I cannot remember a more dangerous piece of legislation than the one before us. Everyone who was shocked by the throwing into jail without charge of Canadian citizens under the War Measures Act must remember that this bill would take the Liberal government of the member from Saint-Maurice back exactly to the point and to the power exercised and abused by the government of the late Mr. Trudeau. Mr. Trudeau had the War Measures Act. The present Prime Minister wants it back. The difference was that after the Emergencies Act we in parliament had control to protect the citizens of Canada. This bill takes away that control of parliament. It is a bad and dangerous bill.

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I had an opportunity to speak earlier on this bill and I intend to again because it constitutes a very fundamental and important threat to the freedom and civil liberties of Canadians. I also believe that it is a bill that is absolutely unnecessary. All the powers the government needs already exist in the Emergencies Act, as my colleague just indicated. That Emergencies Act was brought in more than a decade ago to replace the War Measures Act which was used with such terrible imprecision by the Trudeau government, the Liberal government of the day, to throw Canadians into jail without charge in a shocking chapter of our Canadian history.

What did the Parliament of Canada do about that? For years we were concerned that powers of that kind not be invested again in a national government. The Liberal Party frequently offered and promised, as it promised for example to bring in an ethics commissioner, that it would change the War Measures Act, but it did not change it. It took another government, one in which I was honoured to serve, to introduce changes that got rid of the War Measures Act and brought in the Emergencies Act in its place. It gave the Government of Canada the same powers that it needed to act in an emergency but also built in for the first time the capacity of parliament to review, revoke and control any government actions taken under the War Measures Act.

What does this bill do? It retains the power for the government but takes away the power of control by this parliament.

This is not about terror. This is about accumulating more power for a Government of Canada that already has too much power. Day after day in the House the government has demonstrated that it is far too open to abusing its power. This bill would be bad at any time, but particularly now when we have a serial situation of minister after minister, on relatively minor matters, breaking the trust of the House and abusing their powers.

Imagine, if the Liberals abuse that kind of power with regard to advertising contracts, how threatening it would be to Canadian citizens if a government, whose tradition has already been to invoke the War Measures Act, had the power to abuse the fundamental rights and liberties of individual citizens without any kind of recourse or control by parliament.

It is a very dangerous piece of legislation. I am pleased to see that some members of the government party are standing up and taking exception to individual portions of the bill. Certainly we in our party, and I am pleased to see other parties in the opposition as well, will do what we can to draw attention to the very dangerous aspects of this bill.

Among other things, Bill C-55 will allow the Minister of National Defence to act solely on the recommendation of his chief of defence staff, to designate what are called controlled access military zones. This means any property in Canada, private or public, can be designated a military zone if there is a piece of property or a person which the government believes needs to be protected.

The language of the bill is imprecise. In effect, what it says is that if the government moves any military equipment any place in Canada, the bill would allow it to designate the air above, the ground below and the territory around, wherever that military instrument is put, as a military zone. What instrument might it be? It could be a staff car, a tank, an army boot or anything that under a reasonable definition of the law constitutes something that belongs to the Department of National Defence.

If that is the case and that staff car suddenly shows up in Kananaskis or suddenly shows up on the front lawn of the national assembly of the province of Quebec, or the front lawn of Queen's Park, or the front lawn of the legislative assembly of Alberta, by this law the federal government would have the right to declare the air above, the ground below and the area around that military item to be a military zone where federal martial law could apply. That is a frightening provision. It may or may not be the intent of the government, but that is clearly what this law says.

Section 74 of Bill C-55 amends the National Defence Act to add the definition of a controlled access military zone. The minister may now designate any property that is provided for Canadian Forces or the department and is situated outside a defence establishment—clearly civilian territory.

The new section defines a controlled access military zone as, and I quote subsection 260.1(3):

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.

In effect, the minister would be able to designate a tank, a car, a ship or an army boot as a controlled access military zone.

All area around it, above or below is now subject to control by the military. The dimensions of the zone are not defined. The bill only states, and I am quoting from subsection (4), not greater

than is reasonably necessary to ensure the safety and security of any person, thing or property.

Note that it says reasonably necessary. Who is the judge of what is reasonably necessary? This is left entirely to the discretion of the Minister of National Defence.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is the second time I speak to Bill C-55 and every time I take the floor I try to bring a feminist dimension to the debate. I believe it is important to do, so because women make up 52% of the Canadian population. They have the right to express their opinions on such an important bill, which will regulate some of their actions in months and years ahead.

This morning, I will base my comments on what women told us following the events of September 2001. They came to meet us in last October or November to oppose unilateral decisions that would impact on the safety of their families and children.

I believe women are not against an act designed to maintain public safety. Women in Canada and in Quebec, however, have concerns about the safety of their children and their families and really want this bill to be debated in a spirit of transparency. Women do want their children and families to be safe, but under fair and sound measures.

Women have problems with some of the provisions of the bill. They believe three elements will create a very significant problem. The first element deals with unlimited powers that one or more ministers may have in the areas of health, emergency measures or transportation.

In terms of health, allow me to consult the notes I took following this meeting. Part 5 of the bill, which amends the Department of Health Act, empowers the minister to make an interim order if he believes that immediate action is required to deal with a significant risk to health or safety. I believe that the provisions about dealing with a significant risk are those women are suspicious of. Il will come back to this later.

As regards emergency measures, what is urgent? At the moment, women have needs. They have become the backbone of health care across Canada through their personal involvement. They play the same role in education. Is this not urgent? What is urgent for one is not necessarily urgent for another.

With regard to transportation, the element that raises a problem is safety. We know that air carriers will have an obligation to provide information. I am thinking about an abused woman who is hiding, about a woman who needs to leave the country in order to get information. If she is tracked down and found, this does not really ensure her safety.

The second element has to do with controlled access military zones. I will also come back to them.

The third element deals with personal information. We now know that the privacy commissioner has said that there would no longer be personal information because we will be forced to provide it to an agency under a minister or an senior official.

With regard to the first element, the unlimited power to make interim orders, women in Quebec and Canada remember how the then Minister of National Defence behaved in December, I believe in the case of prisoners taken in Afghanistan and brought to Guantanamo base. Women remember the defence minister's lack of judgment; he hid these operations from parliament and Canadians. We also think of Big Brother.

Women's confidence in the Government of Canada is very limited, in view of some of its actions. Women want to know how far ministers who have to make decisions under Bill C-55 will go. They do not trust the government. They wonder how much logic and transparency these men, who govern, who make decisions, will demonstrate. Indeed, we know that there are not many women in the decision making circles. Will women's views be taken into consideration?

Women also wonder about the credibility of both the Canadian Security Information Service and officers. It is mentioned in Bill C-55 that officers may take decisions. Women are concerned by this. As for the controlled access military zones, once again, women's quality of life would be affected.

I also want to stress that the women of Quebec, and I am one of them, remember the October crisis in 1970. I experienced that crisis personally. At the time, I lived in a Montreal neighborhood where there was an army presencet. The psychological impact of that was terrible. I remember the events as if they had happened yesterday. I remember the atmosphere of war and some images are stuck in my mind. I was in what could be called a controlled access military zone at the time. In my neighbourhood, there was a curfew and we were watched. I was a young girl and I could not even go out as I pleased. This marked me.

Just like me, the women of Quebec remember that. They are not convinced that controlled access military zones will not reproduce what they experienced in those days.

Furthermore, getting back to women's demands, and I want to stress this, we see that the women of Quebec, just like the women all over Canada, have taken part in marches. The first one was not promoted as widely; it was the called the bread and roses march, and was held in 1995. Women took part to say “We experience poverty every day; we are often victims of violence. We need a more equitable and fair system. We need measures for our children and our families. We need the government to pay better attention to our concerns”.

In 1995, they marched. In 2000, they marched again and they went and got support from around the world. It was another step. They came here to tell us that the situation could not go on. There is still a great deal of poverty in Canada, where there are 1.3 million poor children. There is still a great deal of poverty among single parent families with low incomes. The federal government has withdrawn from social housing. There is also a great deal of violence that does not get much attention.

I think that women have had enough. They have marched twice, but they will not march three times. When women see the federal government with a $60 billion surplus while they are the ones struggling to maintain health care, education and social services, as I was saying earlier, they could possibly march a third time, but this time it will be with a lot more clout.

They could possibly go further in their actions. What guarantee do they have that, in a context of transparency, justice, equity and freedom, they will be able to make their grievances known? When they marched at the people's summit, if I understand the current bill correctly, they would have been in a controlled access military zone and they would not have been allowed to express their views.

Women are so sick and tired of the situation, they are so exasperated that they will have to go further. And when they do decide to go further, will they be told that they are not allowed to do so for public safety reasons? Will controlled access military zones be created to prevent them from expressing their views?

Im closing, I will just say this. How does the Public Safety Act, 2002 make women feel safer?

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

That was not long ago. I will point out, for the benefit of our viewers, that this was last Friday.

Last Saturday, the Prime Minister learned that it was no longer the case, that things had changed. Even the minister misled the Prime Minister. There were elements which he did not consider important but which actually were important under the code of ethics for ministers. He should have informed the Prime Minister. On Sunday, the Prime Minister took his responsibilities, perhaps to sweep the scandal under the rug.

Who got the axe? The Minister of National Defence did. He made an error of judgment by giving a contract to his ex-girlfriend; this was unacceptable. Such a thing cannot be tolerated, because it amounts to patronage. The government is managing the taxpayers' money.

Public affairs have to be managed properly, by calling for tenders and going with the lowest satisfactory bidder. This is complying with the requirement for transparency. The fact that bidders are party members, former or future contributors to the party or are close to the organization is irrelevant. Such things should not be taken into consideration.

When reference is made to controlled access military zones, the Summit of the Americas, held in Quebec City, comes to mind. The Government of Quebec, the Quebec government machinery, was very close to the site. Hon. members will recall the demonstrations that took place during that summit.

Why? Because the public has become more aware of globalization, and wants to know what is going on at such summits, to know what will be discussed, how it will affect them, and what will happen as a result. The texts were not made available, which created frustration. I supported their actions resulting from those concerns about decisions often taken by only one person.

If at some point a controlled access military zone were to be declared, emergency measures could also be declared and any citizen found in that zone could be arrested. This would be the case even if that person's home, workplace, school, or other place he or she generally went to happened to fall within this zone.

For a certain length of time—reduced from the original 90 days to 45—they could arrest and imprison young people, women, men, seniors, anyone who happened to find himself or herself in the wrong place, because the federal government, the defence minister, had decided that, in connection with a given event, a given area would become a controlled access military zone. The minister can determine that this zone will cover x square kilometres around the site in question.

Had this been the case during the Summit of the Americas, it might have had the effect of immobilizing the population of Quebec City. This is why we in the Bloc Quebecois deems it unacceptable.

Then there are the interim orders. The minister may decide—a little correction has been made, changing the 90 days to 45—their initial duration. Then they need to be confirmed by the governor in council.

The other thing, which we see as minimal, is that these interim orders must then be tabled in both houses of parliament within 15 sitting days following the decision.

Should the Minister of Health decide tomorrow morning, as my colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel has pointed out, that everyone needs to be immunized because of some bacteria or other substance, what would happen? What if the Red Cross or Héma-Québec had a blood shortage and the decision was made to require everyone to donate blood to replenish the supply?

In closing, I would like to point out that I come from a region that is far away from the federal government. My riding of Charlevoix is on the north shore. Bill C-55's $24 air travel surtax is unacceptable. It is harmful to the people in the regions, it is harmful to the carriers, and it should be taken out of the bill.

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on Bill C-55. I want to commend my colleague from Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière for his performance. Indeed, I have things to add.

As I was saying during my last speech on this bill, in the area I come from, there is a military zone, a military base at Bagotville. I do not know if many members of the House know about it, but I can say that this base is responsible for issues concerning NATO. NATO is also represented on this base. It is a major military base, and I live 15 kilometres from it.

Tomorrow morning, the newly appointed minister—it may not be him, because, unfortunately, this seems to be a very rapid ejection seat—who is a total unknown, whose philosophy we do not know in terms of the powers that will be given to him by Bill C-55, might say that he has decided to take actions that might affect the surrounding communities. All we know is that the new minister is a banker, a guy who is used to count money, but is not used to say such things.

Like my colleague, I am very skeptical about the minister's qualifications at this time, during consideration of Bill C-55.

What is serious is that these zones will be restricted. Ordinary citizens, people in my region, will not know if they are in such a zone. If someone commits an offence and military personnel arrests that person, the military will not have to tell that person why. That person could be convicted and not know why; whether or not the person is convicted will be left to the minister's discretion.

This bill is really devious. I think that back home, it is the Quebec government that has the authority. It should be the one to exercise its authority. In this bill, the Quebec government should be given the authority to decide how things are to be done. That government is the first representative of those people who will be affected by this bill. But no, the Quebec government is not mentioned, it will not be consulted.

In my region, there is a very important mayor, Jean Tremblay. He came here to the House of Commons. He was laughed at. I cannot say it any other way, he was laughed at and he will not be consulted. We all know how they dislike consultations. Only the minister will have the power to decide unilaterally whether he will act or not.

As my time is up, I will be pleased to continue some other day.

[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.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

I will read the article. I could carry on a debate with him, but all he has to do is come to Atlantic Canada and personally tell people what he thinks, then we will see if anybody gets nominated from that party in the next election.

The reality of the situation is that Bill C-55 will not improve the security of Canadians in regions throughout the entire country. One of the greatest concerns we have is the National Defence Act and the naming of military security zones. Not much has changed in regard to the government deciding a secure military zone, for example the G-8 summit at Kananaskis.

Technically under this bill, if the government perceives a possible threat or conceives a possible threat, it can shut down the entire city of Calgary and declare it a secure military zone, if that is the wish of the federal government or the defence minister. What the defence minister can or cannot do is not spelled out exactly in the bill. We find it appalling that someone can have that kind of power over specific areas within the country. We are very concerned about that because we feel Canadians should decide these issues, not the defence minister. This should not be within the powers of the defence minister.

The other concern we have was raised by the head of CSIS that the possibility of convictions would be very unlikely under the new bill. When someone of that breadth of knowledge mentions that to the government, one would assume the government would take it seriously and ensure that right amendments were made to the bill.

I will say something positive about the bill. The Marine Transportation Security Act which allows the federal government to fund port authorities throughout the country is something we wholeheartedly support. That is something very positive and we should act upon it very quickly.

We still need to discuss the interim orders powers and the Canadian airport security authority. Instead of doing this behind closed doors and having short discussions near the end of our session in June, the government should be asking for input from Canadians from coast to coast to coast as to what they would like to see as new security powers for this government. The federal government should work in conjunction with provincial and regional governments as well. That would be very important and would give Canadians the ability to address their concerns in public forums. It would allow them to feel secure in knowing that their government listened to them. This is nothing but a top down approach and it is time for that kind of governance to stop, especially when it comes to security, the rights of people, their privacy et cetera.

We oppose the amendments put forward at this time. The bill can be greatly improved upon. We also reiterate the concerns of the Bloc Quebecois.

Recent newspaper articles have raised a barrage of questions from members of all parties about the conduct of ministers of this government and the actions taken today and other days.

The government is asking us to trust it with the security of our nation and to trust it with the amendments it will put forward. Yet it cannot even handle its own departments in an open and transparent way and in a way that has relevance to the Canadian people.

If Liberal members cannot be trusted to run their own government and if they are ethically immoral or morally bankrupt, then how do they have the gall to stand up and tell us what they will do to provide security for Canadians? Canadians have lost confidence.

I thanked the Alliance yesterday for its motion on the loss of confidence Canadians have toward the government. It is absolutely right. There was quite a debate yesterday on that motion and we were proud to support it. Of course the government does not want to hear this, but the fact is Canadians have lost confidence in their government.

Then the government is going to turn around and pass a bill with such sweeping powers that would affect the lives of all Canadians? I think not. It is time for the government get off its high horse, travel across the country, have debates and dialogue with Canadians to find out exactly what new security measures they want put in place to protect them, their communities, their property and the country as a whole.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from the Bloc Quebecois for his comments. We too in the NDP will pursue this matter vigorously to ensure changes to protect citizens, not harass them, are the focus of any new security bill.

Coming from Atlantic Canada, I cannot let this public opportunity go by to say that even though there is a new Alliance leader, we still hear the same old comments. John Mykytyshyn, a member of the Alliance Party, talked about the attitudes of Atlantic Canadians, saying that they were lazy. The newly minted, newly elected leader of the new Alliance Party is now talking about the defeatist attitude of Atlantic Canadians. When will that party learn that we are all Canadians and that we pull our fair share of the weight in this country as well. I will have more to say about that at a later time. It is unfortunate that a brilliant man like he can have such a negative attitude toward Atlantic Canada.

The NDP is very concerned about Bill C-55. We have heard experts such as the head of CSIS and the privacy commissioner express serious concerns about the lack of credibility and the lack of concerns--

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have another opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill C-55.

The amendment proposed to this anti-terrorism bill number two does nothing to alleviate our concerns. In fact it has added to our consternation about the full intentions of the government with respect to public security. Our concerns about its approach remain. Our worries have been heightened. The responses by government members have in no way lessened or diminished our worries and anxieties.

In general, we remain concerned that the bill does not ensure the appropriate balance between protecting the public and ensuring that the rights and freedoms of Canadians are not jeopardized in any way. The bill clearly provides sweeping powers for police and security intelligence forces to snoop into the lives of Canadians. It uses intrusive powers of police and security forces that threaten to interfere with the charter of rights and freedoms.

Bill C-55 diminishes the role of parliament and gives extraordinary powers to unelected officials in our government and in our society generally. It remains a concern for us that the term military security zones is so loosely defined that it can be used at every turn to repress and stamp out peaceful demonstrations.

The difficulties Canadian citizens are having in organizing peacefully around Kananaskis toward the end of June with respect to the G-8 summit are no coincidence. The government is determined to do everything it can to deny citizens the democratic right to protest peacefully and speak their minds at every opportunity.

The fundamental issues and concerns we have with respect to the bill remain. In the few minutes I have today I want to focus on the fact that the bill seems to be an attempt to make decisions that otherwise would not be acceptable were it not for the events of September 11. The government is attempting to use those tragic events to introduce changes in our society that are unacceptable and unnecessary.

If the purpose of Bill C-55 is to protect the public even within those narrow parameters of terrorist activities, then the bill does not do the job. We have heard recent reports of how CSIS has indicated it is no more likely to arrest people as a result of this bill than it would if the bill did not exist. We are not sure where the powers of the bill will lead in terms of actual implementation and detention of suspected terrorists.

More important is that the bill misses the boat when it comes to the real threat of terrorism if we are looking at the narrow definition presently in terms of public safety. The difficult area for us to deal with is with respect to nuclear, biological and chemical terrorism. Report after report has shown that this area is very difficult to--

Committees of the House

[Joe Jordan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 60th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership of the legislative committee 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.

I also have the honour to present the 61st report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership of the Standing Committee on Transport. If the House gives its consent I intend to move concurrence in the 61st report later this day.

Public Safety Act, 2002

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Canadian Alliance, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we have passed Bill C-36 and now we are on Bill C-55. As my colleague was just getting into, these pieces of legislation are designed to deal with a new paradigm, a new phenomenon that we have the world today, the threat of international terrorism which became so evident last September 11.

The problem is we have this new paradigm but how does the civilized world deal with that problem? What are the facts with this phenomenon of international terrorism?

For the past decade or decade and a half throughout various locations in the Middle East thousands and thousands of people have been trained to become international terrorists. They are distributed throughout the world in the form of sleeper cells. It is a highly sophisticated network. It was designed to operate without a central command system. Perhaps we have destroyed or fragmented the central command and design behind the network but the sleeper cells exist.

What has the government's response been to this new paradigm? It seems to think if there is more government bureaucracy, more regulations, more laws, more infringement of the rights and privacy of Canadian citizens and more taxes that somehow the problem will go away, that it will have been dealt with.

The bill is deficient, as is Bill C-36. We are missing the boat. The way to deal with this matter is in the areas of security, our armed forces and immigration and refugee policy. Maybe I am missing something but I have not seen a whole lot of action by the government in regard to those three areas. The military and the security system are starved for resources. The immigration and refugee policies seem to be virtually the same as they were before.

Warren Buffet, the president of Berkshire Hathaway, has interest in some of the biggest insurance companies in the world. At the annual meeting not very long ago he made it abundantly clear there is an absolute certainty that these sleeper cells will strike again and will cause no end of harm and damage to the western world. About 10 days ago U.S. Vice-President Cheney reiterated that it is an absolute certainty that these people will strike again and that they will strike very hard.

A concern I have and one which the government certainly should have is that it has been sleepwalking through this. I think many government members believe that the crisis is over, that it has passed and we can get back to normal business. They seem to think that a $24 air security tax will solve the problem.

What will end up happening, but I hope it does not happen, is that we will wake up some day with a repeat of September 11. Something else will happen. I hope the people behind that action will not have come from Canada. If that were to happen, my prediction is that our trade with the United States would come to a slamming halt within 24 hours. This country would be in serious difficulty. People would look back at this period of time and say that the government had the opportunity to put policies in place to deal with this threat but ignored it. They would say that the government was too busy with cash for contract agreements and all sorts of other things to deal with the issues that were very apparent to Canadians.

I am talking about foresight. I know hindsight is 20:20 but the government has not addressed the real root of the international terrorist threat. It has ignored the core problem and is not dealing with what we should be concerned about. I cannot emphasize it enough.

If we had a repeat of September 11 and it could be pointed out that a leaky immigration or refugee system in Canada caused the problem I am almost absolutely certain the border with the United States would never be the same again. We would pay a heavy price in every sector of the economy. The problems we have experienced in the last year would be minor compared to what we would be facing at that stage.

I wish I could look through a bill like Bill C-55 and see real action by the government with regard to the three areas I have mentioned. However I do not. Creating military zones and giving ministers more power would not deal with the problem. We would be dealing with something after the fact rather than before. The government should be more concerned about taking the necessary steps to prevent something from happening in the first place rather than trying to react to it afterward. Reaction to this sort of problem would be too late. Our country would be in serious difficulty at that stage.

What is a bit perturbing about the legislation is that rather than dealing with the real problems we are facing as Canadians and taking steps to minimize the risk, it would concentrate more power in fewer hands with less accountability. That is not a good thing in a democracy.

Our society was built on being open. It was built on the rule of law and transparency. It was built on giving citizens freedom, liberty and the ability to make decisions. These things are the backbone of our western way of life. Any time governments get more power and are not accountable they can do things in secret, rise above the law and trample on privacy and other issues. That is not a healthy sign. In a democratic society a government moving in that direction like the Liberal government has been doing is in a lot of ways helping international terrorists.

International terrorists want to destroy our way of life. They do not value our individual freedom and liberty. They do not respect our economic or political freedom. They do not respect the rule of law or our open civil society. In their minds it is the enemy and they are out to destroy it.

The government is rushing to create more power for the cabinet and Prime Minister in a secretive, star chamber atmosphere without any transparency. In doing so it is not dealing with important issues like the need to increase our military resources and security forces. It is not taking a hard look at how to close the leaks in our immigration and refugee system. Under the guise of dealing with security the government is seeking to grant more power to the Prime Minister and his little group of people. That is not the answer to the problem. It will not deal with the issue.

[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.

[Diane Ablonczy, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-55 is a replacement for the original anti-terrorism bill which garnered so much opposition and outrage that it was scrapped.

The purpose of the bill is to strengthen the law against acts of terror. All Canadians want to have strong measures to protect us against possible terrorist attacks or terrorist activity in our country. We want to be safe.

Unfortunately the bill also has some very glaring flaws. It would amend 19 different acts of parliament, implement one international treaty and have an impact on nine different ministries.

There are three problems with the bill. The first one is that it is pretty much a poor imitation of the U.S. aviation security act. This is a government that likes to always deride and decry anything that comes from the U.S. but here it is bringing in an important bill which is really an imitation of a U.S. bill and not even a very good one.

The second and most important problem with the bill is that it really amounts to a huge power grab by the cabinet.

The third problem with the bill is that it is too little too late. The U.S., which the Liberals are imitating here, put a bill together in about six weeks after September 11 despite an anthrax scare it was dealing with where even members of government were receiving anthrax through the mail.

The government has now had eight months and all the bill would do is put in place timid half measures and make a power grab.

The problem with the bill with respect to the power grab is that it gives a number of ministers the authority to issue what is called interim orders. These interim orders would allow those ministers to act without consulting anybody. They would not have to consult cabinet, let alone parliament or anybody else.

The ministers who would have this power would be the environment minister, the health minister, the fisheries and oceans minister and the transport minister. However, the increase in authority that would be given to these ministers is not accompanied by any specifics. No framework has been put around the kinds of instances when ministers might exercise this kind of unfettered authority.

Canadians watching the debate might say to themselves that does not make sense. If there is a huge, immediate crisis they are probably saying that someone should be able to act immediately to deal with it.

On the face of it everyone might agree but I see three problems with it. The first problem is that we have not seen the kind of competence and trustworthiness on the part of government ministers that would allow us to be comfortable with that huge amount of power.

It does not give me any joy to say that, even as a member of the opposition. I as a Canadian want to see ministers with whom I might disagree from time to time or criticize from time to time but who I believe are fundamentally competent, honest and credible individuals.

As we have seen over the last few weeks, as Canadians we have to question whether that is in fact the case. Just yesterday a very important minister, the minister of defence, had to be toasted by the Prime Minister because he had lost all credibility and the ability to act on behalf of Canadians.

We had other ministers who had to be moved out of a place where they were clearly not performing up to snuff.

If the government wants to give this kind of power to ministers, then it has to be and can only be on the basis that these ministers have performed in a way that would allow Canadians to have that level of trust in the ministers.

I would argue, and unfortunately I think most Canadians would agree, that we have not seen that level of competence, trustworthiness, gravitas and ability on the part of our ministers that would allow us to give them that kind of authority.

The second problem with giving ministers that kind of authority is that it is too wide open. If we are going to give people unchecked power, then we should at the very least define the circumstances and the kind of framework around the exercise of that power. The bill does not even attempt to say under what kind of circumstances. Ministers would be able to do whatever they wanted to do without consulting even their cabinet colleagues.

One might argue that in an emergency someone might need to do that. That is all well and good but there should be some attempt to categorize, define or put forward a guideline whereby a minister could act unilaterally.

It is unbelievable that a bill would just say that a minister can do whatever he or she wants without even suggesting when this might be appropriate.

I would say that even ministers would want to see some kind of guideline to guide and assist them and their advisers as to when they should leap into the breach without talking to anyone and when they should take a few minutes to consult.

For parliament to just throw this authority on the back of a particular minister without giving him or her any kind of guideline, assistance or advice as to when this would be appropriate, is really an abdication of parliamentary duty.

The third problem I see with this kind of unchecked power is that there is no suggestion of the kind of resources that can be deployed by a particular minister. If the minister deploys certain resources, such as people, laws, rules or whatever else is available to the minister, he or she will need to communicate this to the people in his or her department and to other departments because no department ever acts alone. If the minister consults and communicates with all the players in his or her decision, why would he or she not take time, and why would other senior people who are elected and who have senior responsibility not be brought into the loop? No one has suggested why that could not be done.

If I or you, Mr. Speaker, were a minister I am sure that before we took a unilateral, strong, immediate action, we would at least obtain some input from the most senior, thoughtful, respected, and knowledgeable people that we could find.

It seems to me that the whole premise of the power that is being given in the bill simply does not make sense. It flies in the face of what a reasonable, thoughtful, competent person would want to do.

It seems to me that allowing ministers to do whatever they want is very open-ended. It does not make sense. It opens up the system to improper activities. It is another symptom of the federal government simply saying that it will do whatever it wants. We are not to question what it does because it is sure it has the best interests of the country at heart.

I do not think Canadians are buying that. I do not think it will give us good results. I do not think it would really serve to protects us effectively. I would say to members of the House that the matter needs to be dealt with before we put this law into place.

[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.

[Jim Abbott, Canadian Alliance, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-55. It is an interesting bill from the point of view that it contains an awful lot of what the government is so adept at, which is to sweep everything together in an omnibus bill. It is not specific. There are many very problematic parts of the bill. However until we see the regulations we will not really understand the intentions of the government.

This is so much a pattern of the Liberals that it is getting to the point where, as former Prime Minister Trudeau used to say, MPs are nobodies when they get away from the Hill. It seems to me that the current Prime Minister has taken that to mean MPs are nobodies even when they are on the Hill because we are asked to come to this place and enact omnibus legislation with few, if any, regulations. We have only the broadest intent from the government as to where it is going with the legislation and we are supposed to be prepared to cast an intelligent vote on its legislation. I say shame on the Liberals because this is absolutely a pattern, specifically with respect to Bill C-55.

I note from a comparison of the transportation issues in the bill that it really is a pale reflection of its American counterpart. The U.S. introduced, debated, amended and enacted much more comprehensive security legislation within a period of eight weeks. It has taken this government eight months just to introduce our legislation.

The problem is the bill does not get to the problem areas facing Canada. There is a problem of invalid documents. All persons who do not have documents should be detained automatically until they can prove their identity or a criminal check is run overseas. Our government does not have the intestinal fortitude required to stand up and be counted on behalf of Canadian citizens and people in this country who should be properly protected. This does not mean that any person with invalid documents should be detained automatically. If people present valid documents when they get on to an aircraft, how do they become invalid by the time they reach Canada?

There is a change in that there is no provision in the bill to send people back if they have come through a safe third country. We have said for the longest time, particularly with respect to our friends in the United States, that it does not make any sense to us that people would be in transit through the United States having landed in the United States. The difference is that they have landed in the United States and they then refugee shop and come to Canada.

Unfortunately, in spite of the fact that it was the Canadian Alliance that raised the bill and put the Deputy Prime Minister on the spot with respect to the bill and in spite of the scandalous comments that came out of the mouth of the immigration minister, we still maintained our position. Lo and behold, only a week after we brought up the issue, the government changed the rules and negotiated an agreement with the United States. Indeed, what we recommended as being just plain common sense will now be in place and we will see that people will not be able to refugee shop.

The concern I have and the reason why I specifically want to speak to the bill is that the bill invests a lot of power in the ministers through interim orders, giving the power to pass an immediate order equivalent to regulations passed by cabinet. This is a power grab. The interim orders need to be approved by cabinet 45 days after they are declared. This is 31 days more than the 14 days currently required by section 6.41 of the Aeronautics Act. Given that sweeping powers already exist in the Emergencies Act to declare a public order emergency, an international emergency or a war emergency, the new interim orders are probably not necessary in most cases.

I am always concerned when the government sees fit to pull to itself powers that are unnecessary. I was the solicitor general critic for the Reform Party during the time of APEC when we clearly saw the Prime Minister's Office involved in running the police actions against some of the more aggressive protestors in Vancouver in 1997

I am committed to the concept that our democracy is defined as being a country where we are protected by the police but we are also protected from the police. Anytime we have politicians giving directions to police, we have the starting point of anarchy, even in a civilized country like Canada. It was this Prime Minister who was involved in that activity through his operative Jean Carle. I saw it, I heard it and I witnessed the testimony that occurred before Justice Hughes in the APEC inquiry.

I have a tremendous amount of difficulty with respect to this section of the bill. If only for this section of the bill, I would be compelled to vote against it. Giving politicians more power and the ability to move against ordinary citizens is just plain wrong.

There are some good sections to the bill. Job protection for reservists if called out “in respect to an emergency” is an important provision which has long been called for, but clarification will be required to ensure these provisions are adequate. We highly value reservists in our Canadian forces. They are men and women who are prepared to give up their time and work within their jobs around on our behalf. We must respect the fact that these people are prepared to put themselves in harms way. Therefore job protection for our reservists is a very important part of the bill.

In the bill there is little controversy about the provisions for greater sharing of information among financial institutions and regulators to comply with the money laundering act. I was involved in another parliament in the negotiation behind the scenes between political parties, particularly with respect to the money laundering act. Canada's money laundering act has the proper balance at this time. The relationship of this bill to the money laundering act is not problematic at all.

However I will restate the main reason why I wanted to speak on this issue. We must always stand on guard. Our national anthem says that we stand on guard for Canada. It is the role and responsibility of members of parliament to stand on guard for Canada. It is our role to ensure that any legislation we are involved in does not give to the government of the day any more power than it absolutely needs for us to have a proper civilized civil society.

I will oppose this legislation, but I look forward to the amendments that may occur during committee process.

[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]

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.

Assisted Human Reproduction Act

[David Anderson, Canadian Alliance, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand this morning and speak to this important piece of legislation, Bill C-56.

Unfortunately, time after time in the House legislation comes in with little foundation, public support or acceptance. We have seen this with Bill C-68 which turned into such a fiasco for the government. We have seen it with Bill C-5, the species at risk act which the government apparently thinks is a good bill because everyone is angry about it. We have seen it with Bill C-15B which is being pushed by animal rights special interest groups who feel the government owes them something from the last election. We have seen it with Bill C-55, the security legislation which is a power grab that would extend the government's power and particularly the power of ministers. Why do we see so much legislation coming to the House in this way? The main reason is that the government is adrift.

Yesterday we heard the government's talking points on corruption. It continually tries to convince us that only government members know what it is like to respect this institution. Today we are dealing with a bill that has had absolutely no respect from the government and its leaders. The bill was sent to committee. The committee did a massive amount of interesting and good work. The minister took the committee's work, threw it all out and brought a different presentation to the House. This is yet another bill that has been introduced almost in a vacuum.

One reason for this is the government's desire to avoid the discussion we need. There are issues beyond this legislation that have not been adequately discussed. If we passed Bill C-56 much of the responsibility that should be parliament's would be passed on to one more bureaucracy that would be created by the bureaucracy. This would remove any opportunity for parliament to control or discuss what goes on in the field.

I will take a few minutes this morning to speak to a crucial issue and ask a couple of questions. First, what is human life and how do we treat it? How do we deal with human life? There are people who say we have talked about this enough and do not need to talk about it any more. There are others who think it is foolish to speak about it. However we need to have a discussion in Canada about what human life is and how to treat it and deal with it.

There are a number of places we can go for the discussion. Ethicists deal with these issues on a daily basis. It is their life's work. There are scientists who are deal with the issues. We need to talk with them. We need to go to historians to look back in history and see what has happened with issues of life and death. It is legitimate to talk with the different faith communities of our country because their focus is on issues of life and death. We should not cut them off from the discussion.

We need to involve political leaders. We were sent here for a reason, and that is to have this discussion. We need to go to regular people and get their opinions as my hon. colleague from Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke did so well. In the last few minutes she read a number of the comments she got from her survey. We also need to go to business participants because there is a business component to the legislation that needs to be discussed.

Bill C-56 comments on what human life is and how we should treat it. I will go through a couple of the bill's definitions. Under Bill C-56 an embryo:

--means a human organism during the first 56 days of its development--

Interestingly, a fetus under the bill:

--means a human organism during the period of its development beginning on the fifty-seventh day following fertilization or creation...and ending at birth.

The definitions in the bill indicate that the government is willing to consider the embryo and the fetus as human organisms. I will continue the definition along its logical path: Perhaps a baby means a human organism during the period of development from birth to two or three years; a child means a human organism during the period of development from three years to 18 years; and an adult means a human organism during the period of development from 18 years to natural death. All we are talking about are different stages of development of the same human organism.

Does the human organism consist only of biological material that we can deal with as we choose, or is there something unique about it? Scientists and sociologists can take us apart and show us piece by piece that we are similar to animals. We have physical systems that function similarly. Because of that, research is done on animals that we can apply and use when dealing with human situations and illnesses.

Many throughout history have argued and understood that the total of what constitutes a human organism is far more than the sum of its individual parts. Most successful cultures and civilizations have believed men and women to be unique. Many religious systems have been predicated on the assumption. Many scientific discoveries have come from the hypothesis.

We need to have a discussion about the issue because we are not only setting the stage for a bill. We are talking about legislating attitudes toward human beings in our society. The conclusion we reach in the House about the issue will have great consequences for Canadian society and culture.

Throughout the last century we saw what happened when governments decided individual human beings were not unique and were only basic economic units. In university I was bombarded for three years with Mr. Marx's political theory which states that all events can be analyzed from an economic perspective and that human beings fit into the same analysis.

We have seen Marx's theory lived out under socialist governments throughout the last century and in this century. There has been more brutality under such systems than under any other. Let us look at Mr. Stalin. To gain control of a segment of his economic society he completely destroyed the middle class agricultural community by starving it to death. The individuals in that society were worth nothing to him because he needed to achieve an economic goal.

We have seen this in China which continues to persecute people and deny human rights. The individual means nothing under China's system as it tries to keep its economic structure moving along. We have see it in Sudan where war is being waged against individuals for the sake of profit. When weak positions are taken regarding human uniqueness, individuality and creativity there is a loss of compassion for other people.

We are not immune to this. The Liberal government has refused to deal with a number of issues involving the value of human life. About six weeks ago several MPs had the privilege of meeting with a number of police officers, customs officials and others who deal with the issue of child pornography. These people are fed up with the government's attitude and its refusal to deal with the issue. Anyone who has seen such material and understands what is going on in the lives of those children knows something needs to be done immediately. Yet the government insists on doing nothing. It has failed to move. Child pornography is repugnant and abhorrent. The Liberal government's failure to deal with the issue touches the heart of how it views its citizens.

There are a couple of other questions we need to deal with and talk about. We need to look at the idea of when human life begins. Our present law says human life begins at birth. This is nonsense. It is ridiculous from a number of perspectives, particularly a scientific perspective. The beginning of human life is at conception when the union of genetic material occurs and completion of the DNA package takes place.

Science has thrown a red herring into the whole discussion by arbitrarily choosing a number, day 14, as the point where the embryo becomes something more than it was on day 13. They want to be able to continue experimentation during the first 13 days so they suggest something happens on the 14th day that makes the embryo a different being. That is not the case.

Scientists have failed to address the issue of when life begins. They run the risk of disqualifying themselves by not dealing honestly with the issue. As we heard earlier this morning, for many of them the issue has become an opportunity to make a quick buck. It has become an economic decision rather than a scientific or ethical one.

My time is winding down. We will be addressing a number of other issues when the bill comes back to parliament. I will talk later about what human life is worth. We talked a bit about whether it is unique and when it begins. However what is it worth? Parliament needs to look at what we consider to be the value of human beings in our culture.

There are two interesting and ironic business realities in the legislation. Under Bill C-56 surrogate mothers would be paid absolutely nothing. They would not be allowed to make money from their commitment to surrogacy. On the other hand, companies in Canada would be allowed to make millions of dollars from research.

Business of the House

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we shall continue this afternoon with the debate on the opposition motion. Tomorrow, we will return to Bill C-56, respecting reproductive technologies, followed by Bill C-55, the public safety bill, and Bill C-15B, the criminal code amendments. On Monday, we will continue consideration of these bills.

Tuesday will be an allotted day. In the evening on Tuesday, as the House already knows, we will sit in committee of the whole pursuant to Standing Order 81(4)(a) to consider the estimates of the Minister of Public Works and Government Services.

On Wednesday, if necessary, we will return to any of the bills I have previously mentioned that may not already been completed, subject to arrangements we may make to deal with the Senate amendments to Bill C-23, the competition legislation, Bill S-34, dealing with royal assent, and perhaps Bill C-5 concerning species at risk. We are also hopeful that Bill C-54, the sports bill, and Bill C-53, the pest control bill, will be reported from committee in the very near future, so that we may take up report stage and third reading of those particular items.

Finally, we are also looking forward to reports from committees of the House on two other bills that have been in committee for what would appear to be an inordinate length of time, namely, Bill C-48 dealing with copyright, which has been before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage for more than three months now, and Bill C-19, the amendments to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, which is fast approaching its first anniversary before the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. I am sure the House is anxiously awaiting the reports of those committees so that legislation can be proceeded with through its final stages.

Excise Act, 2001

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think you would find consent in the House that the vote just taken on the subamendment to Bill C-55 be applied in reverse to the vote now before the House, with the exception of the member for LaSalle--Émard and the member for Haldimand--Norfolk--Brant who are not voting on the motion.

Public Safety Act, 2002

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment to the amendment at the second reading stage of Bill C-55.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment to the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Business of the House

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate the House on the progress that was made earlier today with respect to one very important piece of legislation, Bill C-55. I hope that progress can continue through all stages of that legislation when the House returns to it.

This afternoon and tomorrow, we will continue with Bill C-47, the excise bill, Bill S-40, respecting clearing houses, and Bill C-15B, the criminal code amendments.

Next week is a scheduled constituency week and I am sure the Leader of the Opposition knows the rather elaborate procedure that must be gone through to change that process. It is not an easy thing to do. However next week members will be at work in their constituencies.

When we return on May 21, I would expect then to return to Bill C-47, if it is not already completed. We then would turn our consideration to the very important legislation introduced earlier today with respect to reproductive technologies, that bill introduced by the Minister of Health. I would also in that week that we are back hope to make further and better progress on Bill C-5 concerning species at risk.

I would confirm the earlier commitment that I made to the Leader of the Opposition that Thursday, May 23 will be an allotted day.

Public Safety Act, 2002

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to participate in this debate on Bill C-55, the Public Safety Act, which is aimed at giving the Minister of National Defence the authority to designate controlled access military zones.

It must be an important bill since, as you know, it amends 20 other acts.

When a bill amends that many acts, it has an impact on the whole government since just about every single one of its departments is affected. Indeed, as this bill amends other acts, it is not easy for ordinary people to understand its total impact. To do so, they would have to read the 20 acts in question.

Here is an overview of the acts concerned. Of course Bill C-55 amends the Aeronautics Act, but il also amends the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority Act; the Canadian Environmental Protection Act; the Criminal Code; 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 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 to authorize the minister to make an interim order if he is of the opinion that immediate action is necessary; the Canada Shipping Act and the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, obviously the one that was amended; as well as the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention Implementation Act.

This is not a simple piece of legislation. It is a very broad legislation and it is extremely important.

Previous speakers mentioned the changes or additions proposed in the bill. The member for Saint-Jean talked about the powers given to the minister. I want to focus mainly on the fact that nowhere in this federal legislation is the minister required to consult with the provinces and to obtain their consent.

I know the hon. member for Chicoutimi--Le Fjord will be interested in this. I listened to his speech yesterday, and I told him earlier today when I met him that I found it a bit ironic.

The member used just about the same arguments we do when we complain about the federal government intruding upon provincial areas of jurisdiction, as it did with the highway infrastructure program and other initiatives.

However, the roles were reversed and the member for Chicoutimi--Le Fjord was saying, “We are having a hard time with the Parti Quebecois. It will not let us do as we please in these areas”. Unbelievable.

I respect the member for Chicoutimi--Le Fjord for all his hard work, but I think he has gone a bit too far. They intrude upon a provincial jurisdiction, but they probably hope that the Government of Quebec will not say anything or, at best, fully co-operate, even though this goes against the spirit of Confederation.

I had to digress for a moment, because the member was here and was listening to me. Now, the issue of military zones reminds me of 1970 and the War Measures Act. Young people may not realize this, but it happened not so long ago.

Members will recall that Pierre Elliott Trudeau was instrumental in our having the charter of rights and freedoms. Before implementing the War Measures Act, he waited until Premier Bourassa requested it. This time, no, the provinces are not needed. There is no requirement for consultation with the provinces. Anyway, there is no reference to it in the bill anywhere. The way this government operates, when there are no set conditions, when there is no obligation to consult the provinces—and even when there is, it is a cursory consultation, just for appearances—consultation means informing. That is not the definition I learned when I went to school. What I learned I consider to be the right one.

Consulting means more than that. Consulting means talking to each other, reaching agreement. There is no mention of such a thing in this bill.

There is the matter of the charter of rights and freedoms. One of my responsibilities in the Bloc Quebecois is to represent my party on the subcommittee on human rights and international development. I often hear people from the government side, in delegations or elsewhere, boasting about Canada's great sense of democracy. I will grant them one thing: we believe that other countries must respect democracy, human rights, and basic freedoms.

However, we, the opposition members in the House, are being asked to support a bill where everything would be determined by the minister. He would have 45 days to inform people affected by a controlled access military zone. This is obviously talking out of both sides of the mouth. We are telling other countries how they should behave with regard to human rights and democracy. But this government would be even more respectable if it practised what it preaches. Nothing is less credible than a person who sets lofty objectives but does the opposite. How can one give any credibility to such a person? In this case, we are talking about legislation.

I really do not have anything against the current minister; like others, he will move on. After him, there will be other ministers, and perhaps other parties in office, but the act will remain. We know how long its takes to pass legislation. Generally, legislation remains in force for a long time. It is one of the problems we see with this bill.

I remember the other antiterrorism bill. Members on this side of the House wanted these measures to be temporary. They asked for a sunset clause. There is nothing about that in this bill. The minister is given enormous powers. It can take 45 days for anyone to be informed. There is nothing in the bill that says that people who are affected or whose property is affected can be compensated. And there is no right of appeal.

We all agree that we must protect ourselves against terrorism, but we must also protect our democracy and our individual freedoms.

[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.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to again speak to Bill C-55. I am pleased to speak to the proposed subamendment because it addresses a crucial aspect of the bill that has raised concerns in the House and throughout Canada.

Canadians and people worldwide have been trying to address security issues and the fears they have as a result of terrorism. Initially after September 11 people wanted to do anything they could and to take no chances whatsoever. That is fair enough. However no one in their wildest imagination thought it would be open season for the RCMP and CSIS to have access to the kind of information Bill C-55 suggests they should have access to, at least not without safeguards to ensure oversight so the rights of Canadians are not unjustly infringed on.

The issue in the subamendment, as the privacy commissioner has touched on rather strongly in the last week or so, relates to airline passenger lists. As the transport committee dealt with security issues after September 11 we met with the privacy commissioner. He voiced concerns about information being requested by the U.S. with regard to individuals travelling into the United States. Generally at that point there was acceptance that some information should be available. No one objects to the right of another country to know who is entering it and how they are coming in. People entering a country must have passports or some kind of identification. That was not an issue.

The bill before us would give the RCMP and CSIS access to airline passenger lists. This cannot be seen as restricted to airline passenger lists. The bill talks about regulations that would provide a good deal of information. However I will speak specifically to the issue of providing airline passenger lists to CSIS and the RCMP. They should check them over if they think a terrorist or someone related to a crime might be on board. I do not think Canadians would object, even though a terrorist would probably not put his occupation as terrorist or indicate he was going into the U.S. for the business of terrorism.

However it is a fair complaint. We should at least look at the lists to see if anyone can be identified as a problem. However that is not what would happen. The RCMP and CSIS could keep the lists for whatever length of time and track any passenger on them. They could track their movements from week to week, month to month or year to year. They may think it suspicious that certain businessmen fly to New York or wherever too many times a year. They may decide it is an issue and track them to see what they are doing.

Quite frankly, Canadians have a problem with that. If someone is not a known criminal the RCMP and CSIS should have no right whatsoever to track them. If they are involved in a criminal investigation and want to track a specific person, so be it. However if there is no criminal investigation related to justifiable reasoning it is not acceptable that every person in Canada on an airline passenger list have the information released to CSIS and the RCMP to do with it what they will.

There are those who say if one has not committed a crime one would not have to worry about it. However, I would suggest that while I would not be committing a crime, I would have a problem with someone being able to track what I am doing, because, quite frankly, it is my business. It is a right in a democratic country to be able to move freely. It is a right for me to be able to go to another country. I have to notify that country that I am going there, and that is fine, but I do not think it is right and just that my movements should be tracked.

I am also greatly concerned that if this is allowed to happen on the issue of airline passenger lists, are we then going to allow the RCMP and CSIS access to the records of all patients going into hospital out of the fear that someone might have come in there with a particular injury? Then they can track who is in the hospital and they can see if this injury is related to this type of event that happened there and that type of event that happened here.

It is not as if it is not the slippery slide down the slope. It is. It is critical to the civil liberties of Canadians. It is critical to a free and democratic society. Quite frankly, I do not want persons such as Osama bin Laden and other terrorists to impose on my freedoms and my democracy. That should not happen. If we in our democratic societies now must worry that our movements are going to be tracked and that we will have the heavy hand of either the law or whatever systems on us just because someone wants to have that information, just because they think they may be able to find something, that is unreasonable.

That, I believe, is what the privacy commissioner spoke to. There are those who have criticized and have said there is no reason to worry, but if I want to get a specialized perspective on something I may not know all the consequences of, I like to know that I can go to someone and get that information, a specialist in the field per se. The privacy commissioner is a specialist in that field. He has seen things happen in our country in different situations. He can identify possible things that might happen that some of us would not even see, because he has already dealt with those types of instances. I am willing to accept his concerns as just concerns that the civil liberties and the privacy of Canadians are being imposed on.

Quite frankly, I think that the privacy commissioner was a reasonable man when he was before the transport committee on the issue of security. He was reasonable in his presentations. He also cautioned us that we should be concerned if countries started wanting more and more information. That is reason for concern. I think he was being reasonable and I think he is reasonable in his concerns in regard to the privacy issue related to Bill C-55. I hope that we will have much further discussion on it.

I believe that Bill C-55 is to go to a special committee now. Again, I hope that what we will see on that special committee is a variety of people from different aspects within parliament, rather than having the bill go to the transport committee. There are those who know how I felt about an issue of such great importance for civil liberties going to the transport committee. It is important that we have people on the committee who will give us a good perspective regarding the bill when they delve into that matter.

I will now give my colleague from the Conservative Party an opportunity to speak.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time I have spoken on Bill C-55. There was an earlier bill that I think the Bloc Quebecois succeeded in getting the government to drop. We were not satisfied with the first bill. We have tremendous reservations about Bill C-55, and many amendments are needed.

It is quite obvious, however, that the government had to go back to the drawing board. I could describe many of today's amendments as cosmetic. There is still a major problem with the substance.

I wish to begin my speech on a positive note. The Bloc Quebecois succeeded in getting the government to go back to the drawing board. I am going to focus primarily on the military aspect of the issue because, as members know, I am my party's national defence critic.

The first thing I wish to say about our victory has to do with the part of the previous bill which dealt with the designation of military zones, which could be based on all crown materiel or property. This meant that as soon as there was property anywhere in Canada, whether it was a military vehicle or a letter box, the government could step in and say, “We have a mandate to step in everywhere”.

Now, it has somewhat limited the scope of this provision by restricting it to military materiel. For us, this is already a victory. Not everything about the bill is negative either. I should mention that the Bloc Quebecois agrees completely that reservists, of whom there are now approximately 18,000, should be able to go back to their old job when they return from a theatre of operations or a period of training with the Canadian forces.

I felt that there was one oversight. A public affairs network at the Department of National Defence encouraged employers to release reservists and take them back. But there was no obligation on employers to do so. I think that it is a good idea to allow reservists deployed with the Canadian forces to return to their job upon returning from a theatre of operations or training.

However, with respect to the bulk of the provisions concerning controlled access military zones, we no longer see anything particularly positive about them. We must never lose sight of the fact that one man is going to designate these zones, and that that man is the Minister of National Defence. Even though this is limited to military materiel, I do not think it is an exaggeration to think that, if there are several trucks or a military convoy somewhere, a controlled access military zone could be designated.

In my opinion—and I often give the example of the Quebec City port—, a military zone could overlap onto an adjacent non-military area. Starting from the Naval Reserve building it could include a part of Old Quebec, with all the possible negative impacts that this could have.

The minister keeps coming back to the same example, the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen. Personally, I am convinced that if such a bill were adopted and if an American, allied or British ship were to enter the port of Quebec City, the military zone could go from the Naval Reserve as I was saying, to a part of the Old Quebec sector, with all the inconvenience you can imagine.

We believe that the current minister has misled the House, and this was said in a minority report from the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. On the issue of the Afghan prisoners, we remember that the minister supposedly mixed up the dates. So can we trust this man's judgment? It is most doubtful and highly debatable.

And that is not all. It does not matter who is Minister of National Defence, the fact that the power to create these zones is given to one man only creates a problem. Of course, they will tell us that this will be done on the recommendation of the chief of defence staff. That might be the case, but a recommendation is just that, a recommendation, and in the end, it is the minister of National Defence who will be making the final decision.

Thus it is important to understand that he is the one who will decide everything. Moreover, he will decide everything within such a large concept that, in the part about the controlled access military zone, we find the expression “reasonably necessary” three times. No one can define what is “reasonably necessary”. There are 301 members sitting here and, on any given issue, they all have a different perception of the action that is “reasonably necessary” to take.

This means that too much power is given to one man. We give him “reasonably necessary” powers on the military zone, its time limit, its designation, its dimensions and its renewal. We believe this is going much too far.

There are also other concerns. Can this type of bill and some parts of it meet the test of the charter of rights and freedoms? It is not certain.

The minister will decide about the zone's determination, time limit and dimensions. After that, he is the one who will decide about designating a zone. He will have 23 days to inform people. Once again, for reasons of national security, the Minister of Defence might decide not to inform anyone. Some provisions provide that people who are in these zones, even unknowingly, may be expelled manu militari; they may be forcibly removed from the zone. Some provisions provide that, if they suffer damage or injury, no action may be taken against the government.

When I say we have serious concerns as to whether this meets the test of the charter of rights and freedoms, this is this type of conduct that makes us say this. In our society, everyone should be able to defend himself and say: “I have been hurt and I will take action against the government”. The government says that they will not be able to do so. We believe that this is a very serious violation of the charter of rights and freedoms.

There could be problems with livestock and vehicles and even more serious issues in the farming industry. The minister could designate an area, not tell anyone and extend the zone from a military establishment to civilian territory. People could then be told, “We moved your vehicle somewhere else. It was damaged, not too badly though, but you cannot take any action against us. We get to decide”.

A single man, the minister, gets to designate these zones, to determine the period during which the zones will exist as well as the dimensions of the zones; he also gets to decide whether or not to inform people. If you happen to be there, you can be removed. If you suffer damages or injuries, no compensation has to be handed out. One has to seriously question if that would meet the test of the charter of rights and freedoms. Personally, I do not think so.

If the bill is passed, it will not take long for some people to challenge it before the courts and argue that it is in violation of our fundamental rights and freedoms.

As the House can see, I focused mainly on the issues for which I am responsible, as national defence critic. I also join with my colleagues in pointing out that many other parts of this bill are questionable and would have a hard time meeting the test of the charter of rights and freedoms.

For all these reasons, I urge all the members to amend the bill, but mostly to listen carefully during the committee meetings so that we can really tone down this legislation. As the bill stands now, it would be very hard for the Bloc Quebecois to support it.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak this morning on Bill C-55. First, I will offer my views as the Bloc Quebecois critic on the status of women, and thus give a woman's view of the consequences of this bill.

The Bloc Quebecois does not, of course, have anything against a public safety bill. We are, however, the spokespersons for thousands of Quebec women, and indirectly of Canadian women, who are concerned about their children and their families. For these women, safety is extremely important consideration, and it affects everything that impacts upon their quality of life.

The women of Quebec and of Canada want safety and security for their children and families, but not at any price. Women want it to be logical. They want the measures put in place to be transparent, just and equitable, as well as intelligent.

This bill contains provisions that are, in my opinion, problematic for women. My colleagues who have spoken today have clearly defined the three main elements that are problematical.

The first concerns the unlimited powers available to the minister or ministers, whether for health, emergency measures or transport. The second concerns the controlled access military zones, the third, privacy. Personal information will no longer be private, and the privacy commissioner has voiced objections to this.

As far as the first element is concerned, the unlimited powers to enact interim measures, the women of Quebec and of Canada still recall the way the Minister of National Defence did things, last December I think it was, in the case of the prisoners from Afghanistan who were taken to the base at Guantanamo. The women also recall the Minister of Defence's lack of discernment in concealing these operations from parliament and from the Canadian public at that time. The women want to know how far the ministers will go, the ones who will have to make the decisions under Bill C-55. They are worried.

They ask me “What will be the limits of logic and transparency reached by these men who govern, the decision-makers?” We may know, or we may not, but women are worried.

Women are wondering about the credibility of those involved, and of officials. Bill C-55 would enable officials to make decisions. This worries women. When it comes to controlled access military zones, once again, this has an effect on the quality of life of women.

Let us recall that the women in Quebec remember the October crisis of 1970. I was in my twenties at that time. I lived in a sector of Montreal where the army was present. It made an incredible psychological impact. I remember it as though it were yesterday. I also remember the climate of war and images that have stayed with me. I was living in a controlled access military zone at that time. There was a curfew in effect in my neighbourhood. I was monitored, as a young person; I was not free to go out as I pleased. I practically could not breathe.

Women in Quebec remember this and they are not sure that these controlled access military zones will not reproduce what they went through. Furthermore, if we look at the demands of women—and this is what I would like to focus on more—we see that the women in Quebec, like those in Canada, have taken part in marches.

The first march that caught the attention of the public was the bread and roses march that took place in 1995. Women were saying “We know all about poverty, we experience it every day. We often experience violence. We need a system that is more fair and equitable. We need to put measures in place for our children and our families. We need the government to pay more attention to our concerns”. And so in 1995 they marched. It was a small march that people may not have taken seriously.

In 2000 they marched. Not only did they march again, but they went and got support from around the world: women from 157 countries also marched. It was another step. They came here to tell us that the situation could not continue. There is still a great deal of poverty in the world and also in Canada, where there are 1,300,000 children who are poor. There is still a great deal of poverty among single-parent families with low incomes. The federal government's withdrawal from social housing has also created problems that are felt by women.

With respect to violence, the government of Quebec has established a great many measures to end violence and poverty. However, in Canada, the government has not responded to women's demands.

Let us imagine that, at some point, these women may want to go further. What guarantee do they have that they will be able to come and make representations to us in a context of transparency, justice, fairness and freedom? Women have reached such a degree of exasperation that they will have to go further. When they decide to march on the streets, will the government rule that, for reasons of public security, they are not allowed to do so? Will the government designate controlled access military zones?

As regards privacy, if women go too far, will authorities search for personal information on these women to label them as terrorists? How far will this go?

I am asking hon. members opposite to think about these three points, keeping in mind that women account for 52% of all Canadians.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill C-55 and to express again the grave reservations of the federal NDP caucus in the House with respect to the purpose and intentions of this bill. I believe that these are reservations shared by many Canadians, certainly those who deal on an ongoing basis with upholding the rights of Canadians and our fundamental liberties which are cherished and for which we have fought long and hard.

All of us in the House are clearly interested in finding the appropriate balance between countering the threat of terrorism and upholding the rights and liberties of Canadians.

It is that balance that is in question today. It would appear to us that Bill C-55 tips the balance away from the whole question of ensuring that the rights and liberties of Canadians are not threatened and put aside in the pursuit of anti-terrorist measures for which there may not necessarily be a reason to believe they are helpful to the situation at hand.

All of us are interested in ensuring that our government has the means to address terrorist attacks and to respond to terrorist threats. That is a given.

Some parts of this bill certainly are important in that regard. I want to acknowledge that the government has addressed an important issued raised by many across the country, particularly provincial governments, ensuring that there are comprehensive parameters for terrorist hoaxes. It is very important to have provisions in the bill to counter such hoaxes which create havoc in the lives of Canadians.

There are other provisions obviously that are worthy of merit and consideration. However on balance it would appear that the bill goes far beyond that objective of achieving a balance which is so near and dear to the hearts of Canadians. That causes a great deal of concern on the part of many parliamentarians and Canadians.

I have four concerns that I want to raise briefly. They have been touched on by my colleagues, the member for Winnipeg--Transcona and the member for Churchill. I want to reiterate those concerns and express again our belief that the bill must be thoroughly reviewed and amended at the committee stage.

First, let us be clear that the bill gives extraordinary power to cabinet ministers. It subverts the parliamentary process in the interests of giving cabinet ministers free reign to make decisions without being accountable to parliament and without being open for scrutiny by the public at large.

Any government that asks for that kind of power to make that kind of legislative proposal has to set off alarm bells all over this place. Our question today is: Is it necessary to give that kind of broad reaching power to cabinet ministers and to what end? It would seem to me that the final goal, the end product with this kind of legislation, is not defined and there is no basis to lead us to believe that cabinet should be given those kinds of powers. Cabinet should not be given the right to subvert the parliamentary process, the democratic process and the rights and freedoms of individual Canadians.

Why give cabinet that kind of power, if there is no goal in sight that justifies that kind of subversion of democracy and the parliamentary process? It would seem to lead us to one of two options in terms of understanding the government's position. Perhaps the government is intent on just simply creating the illusion to Canadians that it is standing up tough to terrorism and is prepared to act on the threat of any kind of terrorist activity without really taking the necessary measures.

That is one option. Is this an exercise of illusory politics, is it about smoke and mirrors? That is a question that has to be addressed in this place.

Is the government using this very difficult time in the history of Canadians to actually advance an agenda to make changes that otherwise would not be acceptable? Is the government using the threat of terrorism to make changes in our laws and our responsibilities in this place that would not normally be tolerated? We very much question the delegation of responsibility to cabinet ministers to make decisions beyond the reach of parliament and outside the scrutiny of this place.

The second concern is with respect to the controlled access military zones. We hope this will be dealt with at committee. Our concern is whether or not this is an attempt to disallow peaceful protests when Canadians are outraged and upset with decisions made by the government and in response to international developments. Is this a way for the government to trample basic human rights under a legitimate law?

The third concern, which has been raised over and over again, is with respect to privacy and the questionable provisions in the bill to allow the government to give the RCMP and CSIS unrestricted access to the personal information of air travellers. The privacy commissioner, Mr. George Radwanski, has raised very critical questions in that regard. He has questioned the necessity of the government to resort to these kinds of provisions. He has also questioned the effectiveness of this legislative proposal.

The final point I want to make is whether the government is truly addressing the threat of terrorism in a meaningful way. Are we not skirting the issue and avoiding the difficult issues at hand? I would suggest the answer is absolutely, yes.

On all the key issues around preparedness for a bioterrorist attack or any kind of terrorist threat, the government has refused to actually designate and allocate the resources and establish the programs necessary to ensure that all of our frontline responders are able to move quickly and immediately on any terrorist threat.

That point was made loudly and clearly a couple of weeks ago by the firefighters when they were here on the Hill. They had one very simple request. That was for the government to allocate a mere $500,000 toward their ability to train frontline responders, firefighters, paramedics and police officers in the event of any kind of bioterrorist attack.

With all the money put on the table, the government made a great fanfare with respect to a budgetary provision to ensure that Canada was ready and able to respond where necessary. When it comes down to it however, each and every time the government refuses to put its money where its mouth is or to respect the fundamental needs in our communities today to be ready and able to respond immediately.

We could be talking about health care and the allocation of funds to emergency hospitals right across the country for a co-ordinated response to any kind of threat. We could be talking about firefighters and their simple request for a $500,000 annual allocation to train firefighters. We could be talking about ensuring that all frontline responders, firefighters, paramedics and police officers are equipped, trained and prepared to respond on a co-ordinated basis in the event of an emergency. The government fails each and every time.

I put that in the context of the bill. Is the purpose of the bill really to create the illusion of responding to a very critical issue while not really addressing it in any meaningful way? Is the government using a climate of fear to advance an agenda that gives it enormous powers that would not otherwise be acceptable?

These questions must be addressed by the committee. They must be discussed very seriously. This legislation is setting a precedent. This bill gives enormous powers to unelected people, to cabinet ministers, who do not have to report to parliament.

We are at risk of subordinating the fundamental cherished rights and freedoms of Canadians and subverting the parliamentary democratic process.

[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—

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have another opportunity to speak to Bill C-55 to reiterate some of the concerns I have. One of those concerns, which does dovetail with something that was just mentioned by the member for Calgary Centre, but which I note was actually originally mentioned by the Bloc Quebecois, the member for Argenteuil--Papineau--Mirabel, is the whole question of the interim orders as described in this legislation giving ministers the power to issue essentially regulatory orders. Under any act, the Quarantine Act, the pest control act, the environment act and the criminal code, that basically has no check for 45 days.

One of the things the Bloc Quebecois pointed out very early on in this debate is the fact these interim orders, according to a clause in Bill C-55, would be exempt from the relevant sections in the Statutory Instruments Act. In other words, the minister would issue essentially an interim order that could have an enormous impact and it would not require scrutiny by the Privy Council Office, which is the way things are done now, and it could be allowed to stand without cabinet approval for up to 45 days. I would agree that this is a very serious aspect of the bill that needs to be examined very carefully in committee.

I will say, though, that I think the bill is very defensible in what it tries to do. The member for Calgary Centre has said that the Emergencies Act covers most of the contingencies that might be contemplated by Bill C-55. There I would disagree, because I note that these interim orders do not speak of a national emergency. They speak of a situation of significant risk. That is quite different from what is contemplated in the Emergencies Act, which would be a state of war or a state of attack, the use of a nuclear weapon and that kind of thing.

What Bill C-55 addresses, and why these interim orders, I presume, are seen to be necessary, is a limited terrorist attack, if you will. I will just focus on one type of scenario that I think justifies what is attempted in Bill C-55, even if we do not agree with the means as we see before us.

The world has changed very significantly just in the last year with the realization that Canada, the United States and other western countries are vulnerable to a limited biological or chemical terrorist attack. We would have here, just as an example, that an interim order could be issued with respect to the Quarantine Act.

If we go to the Quarantine Act, we can see where the reasoning is coming from. It is that if there were a suspected limited attack, say on a city or wherever else, we would want the appropriate minister to be able to activate as quickly as possible whatever measures he or she deems necessary to contain the consequences of the attack. I think a biological attack is probably the most dangerous and the most difficult to really put our finger on, to even know that we are being attacked, so I think very rightly the government wants to provide means for a very quick response. That very quick response could involve the quarantining of an area and actually blocking it off so that whatever the problem is does not spread. It could require the shutting down of certain public services and it could require the imposition, the forcing of people to submit to medical examination.

These powers are very profound because they would interfere, we would all agree, with some of our fundamental civil liberties, but I think that in the kind of limited emergency that is now contemplated as a result of September 11 and, more precisely, the growth of international terrorism, also fueled, if I may so, by the Internet, it is now possible for terrorists to communicate over the Internet and get information over the Internet that was previously unavailable, so the world has become a significantly more dangerous place for limited attack.

I support the intention of the legislation. I support the intention of the interim orders. Where I have difficulty is that I think the interim orders, as was mentioned by members of the Bloc Quebecois, the member on our side from Mount Royal and now the member for Calgary Centre, are too wide open as they sit right now. I think when the bill goes to committee we will have to examine very carefully how narrowly we want to limit those emergency orders.

My own feeling is that they should be limited to no more than, say, five days. I would think that is a sufficient length of time for a prompt emergency response to a significant risk situation, whether it is biological, chemical or any other kind of terrorist attack. That would give time for the governor in council to kick in and to look over the order that has been issued by the minister.

It would also give time for the Privy Council Office to oversee it as well because we have to remember that in the Privy Council Office, even though as a member of parliament I sometimes get annoyed with what I feel is the constant finger of the bureaucracy on what we try to accomplish here, the reality is that there is an awful lot of collective wisdom in the senior levels, not only in departments like the solicitor general or Health Canada but also in the Privy Council Office. I would not like to see the senior bureaucracy cut out of the loop when Canada finds itself in a limited temporary emergency.

I would also say, though, that I would agree with the member for Calgary Centre that we should look very carefully at and make comparisons with Bill C-55 and the Emergencies Act. I would hope the committee would very, very carefully scrutinize the powers that are contained in Bill C-55. If there are instances where there is a broader question where a significant risk as defined in Bill C-55 really constitutes a broader emergency, then perhaps it should belong under the Emergencies Act. I think it is very necessary for the appropriate committee to compare very closely the reach of the Emergencies Act versus the intent of Bill C-55 in responding to what could be limited risk situations but very profound risks.

I would say that it is no coincidence that Bill C-55 also has provision for Canada ratifying the biological and toxin weapons convention. This, shall we say, is the name of the kind of threat that we have to maturely consider as parliamentarians, always mindful that we must not overreact to the national security or the public safety issues, because I think we would all agree that any limitations on civil liberties have to be very closely and carefully defined because the terrorists will win if we over-respond to these threats. We have to be very careful. I would say this affects all of parliament. I feel I am very much on both sides of the House on this issue. I think as MPs we have to find the most careful balance and set aside partisan considerations as we consider the bill.

Finally, in that context, I think the requirement to look at the passenger manifests of aircraft again reflects a reality that we can no longer ignore, but I point out that in this legislation it is very well defined. Parliament is authorizing the examination of passenger manifests only on aircraft, so I submit that this is not an extension into other areas of society. This is a very narrowly defined extension.

It is unfortunate but we are moving into a very difficult and frightening world. While I support what the government is trying to do here, the bill really needs to be examined closely in committee, particularly in the area of the interim orders.

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there are essentially three parts to Bill C-55. First, the most innocuous part relates to the Aeronautics Act and certain amendments to the National Defence Act respecting reservists. These proposals can easily be separated from the rest of the bill and are worthy of serious consideration in committee.

Second, the bill seeks to give ministers emergency powers including military powers which the government already possesses in the law under the Emergencies Act. The law already gives ministers the power to act against terrorism or in other emergencies. The only difference is that the existing legislation lets parliament stop abuses of that power and Bill C-55 would put no restraint on abuse by ministers of the government. The bill is not about fighting the threat of terrorists. It is about enlarging the power of the government to act arbitrarily.

Third, the bill seeks to remove parliamentary control. That is new. It is the most insidious and dangerous part of Bill C-55. It would take away the existing ability of parliament to review, amend or revoke emergency measures which ministers might take. The Emergencies Act, the existing law, specifically spells out the powers of parliament: the power to review; the power to amend; and the power to revoke. The existing law, the Emergencies Act, respects the principles of a free parliamentary democracy. Bill C-55 would violate those principles.

We were faced with a similar legislation in the past. It was the War Measures Act. That legislation gave the government power to act in an arbitrary way, without any constraint. History has shown that the Liberal government of the time, of which the current Prime Minister was a member, abused these powers. Invoking the War Measures Act, they threw people in prison without reasonable motives, without verification and, in too many cases, without reason.

Because of that abuse the War Measures Act was finally withdrawn in 1988 and replaced by the Emergencies Act. The major change was to establish the ultimate power of parliament and limit the arbitrary power of government. That protected the public interest against both the threat of terror and the threat of arbitrary action and abuse. Bill C-55 would throw away the protections of our free system and drag Canada back to the arbitrary powers of the War Measures Act.

I invite members of the House to look at the law that already exists. Section 3 of the Emergencies Act defines a national emergency as:

--an urgent and critical situation of a temporary nature that

(a) seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians...or

(b) seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada--

That is in the law that already is in effect. Section 16 of the existing law says a public order emergency:

--means an emergency that arises from threats to the security of Canada and that is so serious as to be a national emergency--

That covers each of the threats referred to in Bill C-55.

The power being sought already exists in the law of the land. It is there to deal with critical situations of a temporary nature. How long is temporary under the existing law? It is from one to four months. That is long enough. It can be extended under the law by bringing it before parliament.

Under the existing law, the Emergencies Act, a declaration of emergency is effective the day it is declared and it goes to parliament within seven days. Sections 57 and 58 of the existing law clearly outline the procedure for parliamentary supervision. Section 59 of the existing law outlines the manner in which a declaration of emergency is revoked by parliament if it is bad or dangerous. Each time the government wants to extend a declaration of emergency under the existing law, a law the government wants to put aside, it must lay before each house a motion either amending or extending the original order.

The Emergencies Act provides for orders and regulations that might have to be issued. In subsection 61(1) of the existing law, the law under which we act now and under which the government is empowered to respond to emergencies like terror, there is the following. It states:

--every order or regulation made by the Governor in Council pursuant to this Act shall be laid before each House of Parliament within two sitting days after it is made.

Every order comes here to be reviewed, revoked or scrutinized. We have the power to deal with it here under the law which exists, a law the government is trying to take off the books and replace with this dangerous, draconian and secretive piece of legislation.

Some orders are confidential. That is fine. The existing law provides a means to keep classified orders confidential but it also provides a parliamentary oversight that guarantees that kind of confidentiality. Those are the matters the present government wants to keep absolutely secret under Bill C-55.

Let us look again at the law we already have, a law the government is trying to get rid of, a law that gives power to parliament and to the people. Subsection 61(2) of the Emergencies Act states:

Where an order or regulation...is exempted from publication in the Canada Gazette by regulations made under the Statutory Instruments Act, the order or regulation...shall be referred to the Parliamentary Review Committee within two days after it is made--

That is a committee bound by an oath of secrecy.

The Emergencies Act is in force. It has not been struck down. Why then does the government want to enact another law that would provide the same powers to its ministers? It is simple. The only difference between the existing Emergencies Act and the power grab version the government calls Bill C-55 is that the Emergencies Act renders the government accountable to parliament while Bill C-55 would circumvent parliament totally.

Under the existing act, all emergency measures taken by ministers must be authorized by parliament. There is even the power to revoke or amend such measures. That is not the case with Bill C-55. Parliament has no say at all under the new bill. Bill C-55 would make parliament irrelevant at a time of emergency. It would leave the rights of Canadian citizens unprotected.

There is another invitation to abuse in Bill C-55. The interim order sections in the new bill are exempt from sections 3, 5 and 11 of the Statutory Instruments Act. That means it is exempt from examination by the Clerk of the Privy Council and the deputy minister of justice to ensure that “It does not constitute an unusual or unexpected use of the authority to which it is to be made” and “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”. That is the law that exists.

The new bill would trample on the basic rights and freedoms of Canadians that are constitutionally guaranteed and it would trample upon them at the whim of a minister with virtually no checks and balances on that power.

The Prime Minister has adopted a very cavalier attitude, as far as the violation of the charter and the limitation of Canadians' rights are concerned. He is telling parliament to go ahead and pass a bad bill. Parliament can ignore the charter because, and I quote the Prime Minister:

The courts will determine if certain provisions are illegal. That is how the system works.

That is not how the system should work.

Terrorism presents a real threat to the fundamental freedoms of Canadians. We need to be prepared. We need to recognize that in an age of terror governments can sometimes act in extraordinary ways, but we must also always be conscious of the other threats to freedom: the threat of arbitrary action and the threat of abuse of power. The bill adds materially to those threats to freedom by authorizing the government to act arbitrarily without scrutiny or control, yet it adds virtually nothing to Canada's ability to fight the threat of terrorism. We have those powers already. We have them in a form that protects against abuse. We should use the law we already have. We should not return to the dark age of the War Measures Act.

[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.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Following consultations among the parties I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move

That the motion for second reading of Bill C-55 be amended by deleting the words “the Standing Committee on Transport and Government Operations” and by substituting therefor the words “a legislative committee”.

[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.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Canadian Alliance, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am addressing Bill C-55 which is before the House at present. The point I want to make right off the top is that there is nothing in the bill that would have prevented the terrible events of September 11 last year, in fact it could have the opposite effect.

If the bill goes through unamended it could actually do the exact opposite to the government's stated objective.

I will elaborate. The federal government is using the September 11 terrorist attack as an excuse to continue its anti-gun, anti-hunting, anti-farmer, anti-sport shooter, anti-firearms collector, anti-historical re-enactor, anti-licensed firearm and ammunition dealer, anti-guide, anti-outfitters and anti-aboriginal hunting rights agenda.

Those are the honest, law-abiding, taxpaying Canadians the Liberals have targeted with these 10 pages of proposed explosive act amendments in the bill.

The amendments were so urgent that the Liberals have waited four and a half years to bring them before parliament. After all, it was on November 14, 1997, that former the deputy prime minister, Herb Gray, signed the Organization of American States inter-American convention against the illicit manufacturing and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives and other related materials in Washington, D.C.

Those wanting proof of the government's anti-gun agenda, here is what the former deputy prime minister, Herb Gray, said when he signed the OAS convention in Washington, in 1997:

This could be the start of a global movement that would spur the development of an instrument to ban firearms worldwide that would be similar to our land-mines initiative.

That source was from the Montreal Gazette of November 15, 1997, “Canada signs deal to curb illegal sales of guns”.

If we need more proof, I will make the point that these proposed amendments are more about inexplosives than explosives. The term inexplosive ammunition component appears 26 times in these 10 pages of amendments.

The government already has total control over the explosive part of bullets and shells, namely gun powder. What possible public safety, anti-terrorism objective can be achieved by controlling parts of ammunition that cannot go anywhere without the gun powder?

The proposed amendments to control inexplosive ammunition components are plain and simple government harassment of tens of thousands of responsible firearms owners who happen to load their own bullets and shells for their own legal recreation and sport.

Terrorists and their deadly operations will remain unaffected and undeterred by these amendments. Explosives are easily obtained by terrorists by criminal means and just as easily manufactured with everyday materials that are available in most food and hardware stores.

The only part of the bill that is any good at all is the increased penalties for the criminal use of explosives. The trouble with these sections is that they will most likely hit the wrong target by potentially criminalizing tens of thousands of law-abiding citizens who load their own ammunition for their legal pastimes and sports.

Instead of writing the law the way the government intended, the government assures all concerned:

The people responsible for applying the amended act do not think that the proposed measures will interfere with supplies for hunters and people who manufacture their own agenda.

If that is what the government means then why does the government not say who the laws are intended for and exempt everyone else?

The danger with these amendments was pointed out in a Library of Parliament research paper prepared on January 18. The lawyers reported:

Those who presently make their own ammunition are already regulated under the Explosives Act since an explosive (gun powder) is a regulated product. Thus, licences are currently required, for example, to import explosives. Clause 36 would replace section 9 of the current Explosives Act by requiring a permit to import, to export and to transport in transit through Canada not only for explosives but also for inexplosive ammunition components.

Consequently, law-abiding citizens who manufacture their own ammunition would end up being charged with the new offences proposed in these amendments, offences that call for fines up to $500,000 and imprisonment of up to five years in jail.

Offences that are targeting law-abiding Canadians in this act include: acquiring, possessing, selling, offering for sale, transporting or delivering any illicit inexplosive ammunition component and making or manufacturing any explosive from an illicitly trafficked inexplosive ammunition component. The government has not told us how it thinks anyone can make an explosive from an inexplosive ammunition component. The definition in the act states “inexplosive ammunition component” means any cartridge case or bullet, or any projectile that is used in a firearm as defined in section 2 of the criminal code.

Even the government's own definition clearly demonstrates that no one could possibly make an explosive out of inexplosive ammunition components. I would like to propose at the appropriate time that an amendment be made to remove all references to inexplosive ammunition components from the proposed amendments to the explosives act.

I also would also like to bring the attention of the House to another matter that concerns me and my constituents greatly. Farmers and dealers are examining this bill right now.

A spokesman with the explosive regulatory division, minerals and metals sector of Natural Resources Canada indicated that at this point it had only one component in mind. The component to be restricted by this act is ammonium nitrate, one of the substances used in the Oklahoma City bombing a few years also.

Presently a person can buy this product without having to show any link to the agricultural industry. The goal is that the regulations will impose tighter control on the retail sale of this product. The actual controls would be set out in proposed regulations and would need to go through the regulatory consultation process. It is clear that in the future other components may be added to the restricted list as needed.

This proposed legislation enables the government to go well beyond the parts of this bill and that causes us concern. This is enabling legislation. We do not know what regulations in future the government will bring in. These could be very harmful to farmers and dealers who deal with this particular type of fertilizer.

I would like to conclude by restating what I said at the beginning. There is nothing in the bill as it now stands that will affect the events of September 11 of last year, yet it is being used as an excuse to respond to that. I believe there is something else here that the government has not come clean on. That is why I would like to propose the amendment that I did.

Public Safety Act

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

Mr. Speaker, the privacy commissioner has merely said that he wishes to see the measures proposed by Bill C-55 implemented as promptly as possible. That is what we are proposing with Bill C-55.

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in a letter addressed to the Minister of Transport, the privacy commissioner is calling upon the government to respond to his objections to Bill C-55 on public safety, certain provisions of which he claims are a step toward totalitarianism.

How does the Deputy Prime Minister intend to respond to the privacy commissioner's concerns?

Supply

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Chairman, with respect to the reserve restructuring, we will not lose the gains made in phase one. The increase in the number of reservists and the improvements that have been made under phase one will continue on.

The question of phase two is a matter of additional funds. As we go through the defence update, that and a number of other capabilities and issues will have to be dealt with. There are no funds for phase two at this point in time but that will have to be addressed by the fall.

With respect to protection of employees who are reservists, we used to have that kind of protection around the time of the Korean war. It was on the books for a while even though it was not used. It has not been used since then because we have not had any mandatory call outs. Everything has been done on a voluntary basis. It is our feeling that as long as we are asking people to serve on a voluntary basis on things like the ice storm or other kinds of missions that might involve the need to have a lot of reservists come out, no job protection is being proposed.

It has worked in the past. Many employers have been co-operative and have understood the needs and they have given their employees time off.

In Bill C-55 we are saying that given the current climate and concerns about the possibility of terrorism, if there is a compulsory call out of the reservists and they do not have a choice and it is not voluntary, we should protect their jobs. That is what is in Bill C-55. That is an amendment to the National Defence Act.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Chairman, I would like to talk about the reserves now. I have heard the minister say all evening that the reserves were important, and that their numbers were growing.

General Jeffery said he was concerned, following the Fraser Recommendations and following the whole restructuring of the reserves. This is being done in phases. Phase I has been completed, but we are waiting for money for phase II.

I would therefore like to know if the minister will free up this money, because it is all well and good to have good intentions, but if the money is not available for phase II, the whole restructuring of the reserves will be jeopardized.

While we are on the topic of the reserves, I have a second question regarding reservists returning to their jobs. Employers are encouraged to free reservists to go into theatres of operations or on exercises. However, they are not guaranteed the same job upon their return.

I know that Bill C-55 contains a number of provisions. However, I wonder if the minister does not think that it would be wise to amend the National Defence Act to require employers to rehire these reservists who have been sent into theatre or on exercises or training for the Canadian army.

Public Safety Act, 2002

[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.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to return to the House and speak to the amendment to the amendment put forward by the member for Rosemont--Petite-Patrie. This amendment alone sums up well the concerns those of us on this side of the House have about Bill C-55. These concerns are shared by many people outside this House and even by our colleagues across the way.

I will not comment further on the fact that the Liberal member for Mount Royal has himself expressed very serious reservations about the potential threat to human rights and freedoms represented by Bill C-55.

As I said, for a Liberal colleague to dare to ignore the rigid party line on this issue must certainly set off a few warning bells for us and cause even greater concern.

But, before going any further, I wish to take a few moments to comment on the remarks made by the member for Chicoutimi--Le Fjord, who supposedly came to the House to support Bill C-55 and who, once again, could not resist spewing his venom on other parliamentarians, this time the Bloc Quebecois members in particular.

As everyone knows, insults are the weapons of the weak. And the member for Chicoutimi--Le Fjord has not been without quite a stock of them during his long political career. The Progressive Conservative, Independent, Liberal member for Chicoutimi--Le Fjord has often used this means of arguing his point of view. He has built up a long list of insults, and I am going to refresh our memory with some of them now just to show how consistent the member for Chicoutimi--Le Fjord has been. Here are a few gems. On November 29, 1999, he said:

Yes, people are tired of the constitutional debate, but they certainly need a break from the provocation carried on for the past 30 years by the leaders of the Liberal Party of Canada.

On March 20, 2000, not all that long ago, the member for Chicoutimi--Le Fjord said:

How does one go about getting rid of a Prime Minister who, not just in the case of Human Resources Development Canada, but in the case of the budget, is determined to interfere in all sectors of provincial jurisdiction?

How? Probably by joining his ranks. Perhaps the best way of getting rid of a Prime Minister is from inside the tent. If I were the Prime Minister of Canada, I would be asking myself some very serious questions and I would also be worried.

On the topic of federal-provincial relations, he said on April 7, 2000, and I quote:

The federal government sees itself as the father of all provinces, which it views as big municipalities. It is contemptuous.

On poverty, he stated on March 20, 2000:

In the seven years since the Liberals took office, poverty in families and child poverty have gone up 50%.

On November 30, 1998, he said:

I see that the government does not know where to start in the fight against poverty.

On the constitutional debate, still referring to his good friend, the Prime Minister of Canada, he stated on December 15, 1999:

He is the one who cooked up that procedure one night at the Chateau Laurier, a concerted effort by the federal government and nine Canadian provinces to crush Quebec, to marginalize it, to strong-arm it.

So, when they talk of the charter of rights and freedoms, the 20th anniversary of which was celebrated on April 17, the member for Chicoutimi--Le Fjord forgets to remind us of what he said in 1999 about the terrible night of the long knives.

[The Deputy Speaker]

We are presently on Bill C-55. We just had a subamendment tabled by the member for Rosemont--Petite-Patrie. I believe the hon. member is referring to another matter that will be debated later this day.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The Chair has considered the amendment to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Rosemont--Petite-Patrie and has found it to be in order.

Therefore, the new motion reads as follows:

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.

The debate will proceed on the amendment to the amendment. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today on Bill C-55. Although I am not the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport in the House, my speech will be a responsible one, unlike his. In principle, he should be quite familiar with the bill and should have addressed the substance of it. Instead, all he has done is to resort to a kind of political demagoguery in order to attack the work the Bloc Quebecois is doing in the House.

I have no need to be lectured by the hon. member for Chicoutimi--Le Fjord. I have here a list of three pages of statements made by that member when he was on this side of the floor, and took it upon himself to assess the government on the other. I will quote from a few of them. This is a particularly strong one. Quoting the hon. member for Chicoutimi--Le Fjord:

In Quebec, we have been putting up with that for 30 years from the former Prime Minister and the current one.

This was on March 20, 2000 in the House of Commons. Today, we have the hon. member on the other side of the floor.

If we want to see public confidence in politicians restored, all members of this House must have a bit of gumption and a bit of consistency.

[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.

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Madam Speaker, thank you for trying to restore a shred of decorum to the Chamber on this Friday afternoon.

I found it quite astounding to listen to the dissertation by the hon. member for Chicoutimi--Le Fjord. I noticed he did not refer very much to the bill. It seemed to be an attack against the Bloc Quebecois.

I have always felt that it is unfortunate when debate reaches the stage where we have just 10 minutes of debate with no questions and comments. It does not allow for the back and forth parry and thrust of a good debate. However that is where we are at and so we will continue along. Hopefully if the members still want to discuss it between the two of them they could do it outside.

I have noticed one thing about government members when they address Bill C-55. They seem to indicate that this is something the government and country needs because of the events of September 11. All of us agree those were tragic and unprecedented events in the annals of history, certainly modern aeronautical history. Somehow that means we need to bring forward legislation like Bill C-55.

We have heard them say that we need to fast track the legislation and get it in place just in case. God forbid something like that would threaten us in the future. Hopefully the government would have the power and authority to act quickly to prevent something like that.

I want to refer to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. Standing Order 29 states that should a quorum appear not to exist at the time the House meets, a count of the House will be taken, that if fewer than 20 members are present the Speaker will adjourn the House until the next sitting day and that the Speaker may take such an initiative only before the House has been called to order.

The interesting thing about this is the government's claims that there is a need to get the legislation before the House, get it debated, get it to committee, and get it into law. The government has 170 or so members. This morning the House waited for 23 minutes before the government could muster 20 bodies into this place to get quorum in order to debate the legislation.

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Madam Speaker, if hon. members from the government and from the Bloc Quebecois could step outside they might settle this dispute they seem to be having. While it is always entertaining to listen to the ongoing banter and discourse between the government and the Bloc it is not adding a lot to the debate of Bill C-55.

[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.

[Aileen Carroll, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join colleagues from both sides of the House in debating the amendments that have been brought forward from Bill C-55, as it relates to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act.

Bill C-55 amends the proceeds of crime--

[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.

[Jim Gouk, Canadian Alliance, Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to go to something which arose during question period today. In discussing Bill C-55 the solicitor general said that the bill would help authorities become aware of individuals, like murderers or whatever, that could be entering the country and that we would be able to arrest them. In question period today he said we should be pleased that the government is giving the police the powers to deal with this.

The fact of the matter is we already have border security with our Canada customs agents. These are dedicated, well trained people who know how to detect these types of people coming across the border. However they do not have those tools that the solicitor general says he has given to the police to deal with them when they are right at the border.

This goes back to the former minister of immigration who could not deal with inappropriate people coming in under her portfolio so she got demoted to the revenue portfolio, and now supports an internal document that states:

Should a customs officer encounter an individual who is identified as being the subject of an armed and dangerous lookout, the customs officer should allow the individual to proceed and immediately notify the police and provide as much detail as possible to enable apprehension...

That is garbage. In defence of this ridiculous policy the minister then went on to compare Canada customs agents to bank tellers. I am sure the Minister of Finance already looks upon them as tax collectors. He has after all in the past been heard to say something along the line that he never met a tax he did not like. Naturally he would want them to devote their energies to collecting money for the cash-hungry government.

To say, as the solicitor general has done today, that we have given the tools to the police to deal with inappropriate people coming across our border is the same as the minister who deals with the softwood lumber issue saying that the government is dealing with this and have employment insurance for those people who are losing their jobs. We would rather have real jobs for those people.

It would also be comparable to saying that the government will enhance ambulance services in this country to better enable them to take accident victims to the hospital instead of doing something about the deplorable condition of the national highway system.

Part of the mix of course, because Liberal ministers often like to talk in two different directions at the same time, is that the same minister, who said the government was taking steps to deal with job losses through the EI system for softwood lumber, also claimed there were no direct job losses and the natural restructuring of the industry was taking place, so no real action was required by the government. I guess that is how it justifies the position it takes.

It is ironic that the government has brought in a bill that has a lot of draconian powers that even some of its own backbenchers are speaking out against. At the same time it is not taking the simple, obvious steps such as equipping our Canada customs people to do the job right at the border. They are the first line of defence for this country's borders and they are not being given the tools they need to do the job.

We are debating our amendment to the bill and we will come back to the bill during other stages. I assure the House that I will be here. I will be speaking out on behalf of Canadians who have concerns with the bill, who are alarmed at a government that would ram it through without proper debate. They are alarmed at a government that continues to put these kinds of omnibus bills through without even considering splitting them up so they can be examined properly by their various departments.

Canada Customs and Revenue Agency

[Jim Gouk, Canadian Alliance, Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the solicitor general recently said that Bill C-55 would help make authorities aware of individuals “like murderers or whatever that could be entering the country and we would be able to arrest them”.

Perhaps he should have talked to the revenue minister who recently compared Canada customs agents to bank tellers, and supports the position that armed and dangerous individuals should not be detained at the border.

Why is the government tabling bills that give it powers that even the federal privacy commissioner says should alarm law-abiding citizens when we are not even providing the tools to Canada Customs to do the job of protecting our border?

Public Safety Act, 2002

[Jim Gouk, Canadian Alliance, Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that everybody will be so spellbound with what I have to say that the Chair actually wants me to stop partway through, so they can digest it, and then start again after question period.

We are in fact debating the Canadian Alliance amendment to split the bill. As the government is wont to do, it has made this such an omnibus bill covering so many different areas and even different jurisdictions that this is actually a bill that is about one-third transport and two-thirds justice. Yesterday in the justice committee we raised the fact that we are faced with dealing with a bill that actually has more justice items in it than transport items. That is why we suggested that it should be split into two bills, one for the transport portion of it and one for the justice portion of it.

What is even more alarming is the fact that the government wants to fast track the bill. In fact, the Prime Minister has publicly vowed that he will fast track Bill C-55. To hell with debate and to hell with democracy, which is something we have already seen in the House, he wants to fast track the bill and ram it through parliament. Those are his own words.

Instead, we say that if the government thinks there is merit in this and if we think there are a lot of problems, problems that have just been disclosed in part by the last speaker from the NDP, let us look at it, but let us put it into its proper sections and let us take the time that is necessary, not only to debate it in the House but to have good public input.

The very thought that the government would want to fast track a bill that the privacy commissioner himself has stated should alarm law-abiding citizens is a reason for not fast tracking it. However, at times the Prime Minister likes to fast track things. For example, the Prime Minister fast tracked buying over $100 million worth of new jets for himself and his cabinet colleagues to fly around in, despite the fact that the people responsible for the present jets say they are perfectly serviceable. He fast tracked it to the point that he even skipped by his own cabinet and rammed this thing through just before the Easter break.

Let us look at some of the things the Prime Minister perhaps could fast track and has not. He could fast track buying new helicopters for the military. After all, the military is flying 40 year old machines. That is the equivalent of the cabinet driving around Parliament Hill in flathead Fords. We see the government trading their cars in quite regularly. They are not driving flathead Fords. They are not even driving very old models, yet the government expects the military to be flying around in 40 year old helicopters. One of these days one of those helicopters is going to end up at Rockcliffe. When a former serviceman takes his grandchildren out to see one of these things and tells them that he actually flew it, they will not believe him. In fact, one of the ironies is that in some cases we currently have members of the armed forces flying these machines whose own grandfathers may have flown those machines in the Canadian military as well.

As well, the Prime Minster has not fast tracked obtaining proper uniforms for our fighting forces in Afghanistan. The government loves to throw it at us that we are not supporting our troops, that we are not recognizing the incredible job they do. We do. We recognize that our troops are over there in jungle uniforms buying beige paint to splash on their uniforms. With the full approval of their senior officers, our troops are putting beige paint on their uniforms and on some of their weapons in order to camouflage themselves, and it is paint, not even clothes dye, because paint is what they can get. When we see the Canadian forces go into action in Afghanistan we can always tell who they are, even in a multi-country force, because they are the ones in the dark uniforms in the desert.

Also, the government has not fast tracked legislation dealing with child pornography. We still have people such as John Sharpe in British Columbia, who says that he has artistic merit in the pornography that he writes and who is still able to publish books glorifying this type of pornography.

The Prime Minister is also not fast tracking any action on the softwood lumber issue. In fact, the minister responsible for this has gone so far as to say there is no real need for alarm because nobody has really lost a job. It is just an industry readjustment. The government is so far behind in its thinking that it is quite unbelievable.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, the record will show that the member for Kings--Hants did not understand the question I posed to him when I asked whether he was concerned about the privacy commissioner issuing press releases on his concerns about Bill C-55 instead of reporting first to parliament. The member for Kings--Hants made it very clear in his reply that he thought that the privacy commissioner is an official of government. As we know, the privacy commissioner is an officer of parliament like the auditor general and is required by statute to report to parliament.

The reason why this issue is important is because this is a vitally important debate we are having before the House right now. It is a debate that touches on our fundamental civil liberties and tries to strike a balance with that and the need for public safety in a world that has become much more threatening than it was merely a year ago.

The difficulty with the privacy commissioner in effect going to the media with his concerns about the privacy considerations in the bill is that it inadvertently or maybe deliberately distorts the debate. We had an example when the member for Kings--Hants quoted from the privacy commissioners press release in expressing his concerns about privacy in the relevant section of Bill C-55. I think that is unfortunate, because there is no doubt that the privacy issue in Bill C-55 is very important.

What is of concern to the privacy commissioner is the prospect that the police and security officials will be able to look at the passenger manifests of aircraft, both going from this country to another and domestically, and thereby use that opportunity to look for potential terrorists and even to look for potential criminals.

One can see why they might want to do that, because one of the new things that has emerged after September 11 is the whole business where people who go by air now have to show photo I.D. Suddenly, unlike ever before, the police and security officials have an opportunity to track individual people as they travel on aircraft.

I do not think that any of us would argue that this is a very necessary thing that we would want the police and security officials to have in the interests of tracking potential terrorists. There is a legitimate question about whether or not this opportunity should be extended for the tracking of possible or known criminals. That is an issue that I think needs to be debated at length in committee. For myself, I do not think it is unreasonable to use this new opportunity to try to identify known criminals as they use our air services, given that we now have the opportunity to see precise photo identities for every passenger who boards an aircraft.

Let us set that aside for a moment. I thought the member for Mount Royal raised a number of very important concerns about Bill C-55. These are concerns that in many respects, at least in my view as a member of parliament, are more important than the privacy issue, certainly because they strike to the very heart of the accountability of this legislation to parliament. I will not repeat those because I have limited time, but in my turn let me point out something that I find in the bill that causes me great worry. It is something which needs to be dealt with in committee and of which I think every member of parliament should be aware.

The way the bill works is that it gives ministers the ability to issue interim orders. These orders enable the appropriate minister, whether it is the Minister of Health, the Minister of the Environment or the Minister of Transport, to issue orders within the context of the particular legislation to meet a current emergency.

For instance, the appropriate minister can issue an interim order with respect to the Quarantine Act. We can see why the minister might want to issue an order in that case because one of the world dangers that has arisen is the possibility of a terrorist attack using biological weapons. There is also, concomitant with that, the whole danger of new diseases coming out of Africa and South America that have never been seen before which are high contagious and highly dangerous.

I do agree that the minister should have this authority and certainly there should be a debate about how that authority should be limited, but I would agree that he needs the authority.

What I find troubling is in each one of these interim orders we find the words:

The Minister may make an interim order that contains any provision that may be contained in a regulation made under this Act if the Minister believes [the situation warrants it]...

We are talking about regulations. This gives the minister, the relevant minister, a huge opportunity to circumvent all parliamentary knowledge.

One thing that backbench MPs and all members of parliament complain about always is that the bills we pass may say one thing but the real crucial thing is what is said in the regulations. Unfortunately, so often the legislation that we pass in this House allows an open door on the type of regulations that may be made.

What that provision does in all these various bills that it touches upon, the pest control act, the drug safety act, the transportation security act and so on and so forth, is it gives the government an absolute opportunity to do anything it pleases by simply changing the regulation and then declaring an interim order.

At the very least what we have to do is ensure that when this bill passes it only applies to existing regulations and these interim orders cannot be applied to regulations made subsequently unless those regulations are cleared by parliament. It cannot leave those regulations to the bureaucracy alone.

I think this is very necessary legislation. I do not accept the thesis advanced by the opposition that this is some attempt by the government to grab massive power. The reality is that the ability to write this kind of sensitive legislation is very difficult and delicate. It is done by the people in the bureaucracy, mainly in the justice department. Our responsibility as MPs is to go through this legislation as carefully as possible, identify concerns like I have just outlined and not be deflected by those who would lobby us to concentrate on only one aspect of the legislation rather than the others.

We must look at this legislation across the board and we must also see it in the context of the Emergencies Act to ensure that there is nothing in this bill that should not properly be under the Emergencies Act because it has much better parliamentary oversight than this bill has. I hope the committee will do this.

I will conclude by saying that I think this is important legislation. It tries to strike a difficult balance. I am extremely concerned about the regulation aspect of it. I will have a great deal of difficulty unless the government, parliament and committee address that problem. I think that otherwise most provisions in the bill can be dealt with.

Let me finally say that I attempted to raise a question of privilege with you, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the privacy commissioner. I realize now in reflection that I began that question of privilege in a way in which you had no opportunity to rule other than how you ruled. However the point remains that we cannot have an officer of parliament lobbying the public through the media for his particular point of view before his concerns are brought before this House as allowed for in the Privacy Act in sections 38, 39 and 40. This House I believe will have to deal with that matter in due course.

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to congratulate my government colleague across the way, who gave a most eloquent dissertation. I hope all the people out there listening paid close heed. It was superb.

The issue is 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 bottom line is that what we are trying to do here is enhance public safety. I will just deal with a couple of aspects of it, because much has been said in the past.

On the issue of transport, one of the things that we all want in airline transport in particular is some kind of unified, codified degree of standards, national standards for those individuals responsible for engaging in airport security. There are widespread differences across the country. Recently we have heard some disturbing evidence about this. The government needs to work with partners across the country, with airport and airline authorities, to ensure that security personnel across the country have the same standards, the same training, the same skills and, indeed, adequate working conditions and remuneration.

One of the problems is that the remuneration for these individuals is extremely poor. They work very hard and they are as concerned as we are about being able to do their jobs properly. They want the proper training, they want the skills and they want the standards to be the same across the country so that airline security will be top-notch.

On the issue of the security perimeter, it is essential that we work with our partners, not against them, and that we certainly pay our dues if we are going to reap the rewards of being part of this larger security perimeter. That is essential. For too long as a country, because of neglect on the part of the government, we have been following on the coattails of our partners and not paying our dues. We know that if we go to the security table and want to be a partner, we have to go to the table with some resources.

For too long our defence department and our Canadian forces personnel have had their resources removed and gutted. We have a critical need for an adequate number of personnel in our defence department. CF personnel who are on the sharp edge of our Canadian forces are cycling far too quickly in our country. As a result, incredible stress is placed upon them and their families. Quite frankly, they are suffering from burnout.

Objective evidence of this is the degree of attrition in our CF personnel. We cannot retain our individuals. Furthermore, we are not able to hire them either. The government needs to pay close heed to this to ensure that it is able to attract and retain the best. Too many of our best are leaving because they are being burnt out, because they simply are not being treated properly and fairly.

On the issue of root causes, I want to draw attention to a couple of issues that Bill C-55 should have taken into consideration. One is the issue of the biological and toxin weapons convention. I cannot imagine why the government has taken so long to implement this convention. It is a big problem. We have had some very disturbing evidence of fissionable material, things needed to make nuclear weapons, being lost, particularly in Russia. By pure luck, some of that fissionable material has been found and blocked. We know that people are trying to sell a lot of that material and there are willing buyers in the Middle East in some terrorist organizations. It is very disturbing to us, to our security partners and to other people in the world. If we do not get a handle on this so-called lost fissionable material, dirty nukes could be the way of the future. That is a serious problem.

If we do not work with our partners to find and apprehend this fissionable material, of which a substantial amount has been lost so far, we could run a serious risk of having a small nuclear device, packed with conventional explosives around the outside, exploding nuclear material in a large region. While I hope that not that many people would die, the bigger problem is that of people dying prematurely due to radiation poisoning and cancers associated with exposure to radioactive material.

It is a serious problem and I strongly encourage the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of National Defence to work with our American and NATO partners to deal with the situation quickly. It is a situation is out of control and should be of deep concern to all of us.

On the issue of root causes, we are spending a lot of time in Afghanistan and in large part we are missing the boat. If we simply look at al Qaeda, much of the terrorist organization has widespread tentacles across the world, from the Far East to the Middle East and to North America, particularly the United States.

If the government is going to cut the head off this Hydra, it has to get to the area where many of these individuals are found. The people who are the masterminds of this have a very distinct geopolitical purpose. They want to go back and make the Middle East a region where Islamic fundamentalism will take hold. The events of September 11 were as directed to countries such as Saudi Arabia as they were to the United States. Islamic fundamentalists see Saudi Arabia as somewhat of a sellout to the larger dream of having a pan-Islamic Middle East based on fundamental Islam.

The government has to get to the root causes. One way to drain the swamp is to deal with those critical areas where individuals have been pulled out to become suicide bombers or have joined terrorist organizations. We simply cannot exclude and continue to ignore the horrific situation taking place, particularly in Palestine.

We must work with the United States and other partners to do a couple of things. First, bring both parties to the table and, if necessary, use financial levers to do that. Both Palestine and Israel rely heavily on international funding. If the government can bring them together at the table by using those levers, if necessary, then it will be able to force them to do the following: first, the recognition of an independent Palestinian state; second, the recognition of a safe and secure Israel; third, that the Palestinian Authority have control over Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and other groups that would murder innocent Israeli civilians; fourth, that there be a pull-out of Israeli troops from the occupied territories in the West Bank; and fifth, that there be a complete and unconditional pull-out of all Israeli centres in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. This is absolutely important.

If we looked at the map of the West Bank, we would see that it is pockmarked with 141 Israeli settlements that have continued to increase in numbers. That cannot produce peace.

The Palestinian Authority, which is a highly corrupt organization, needs to have its feet put to the fire. Mr. Arafat needs to actively root out corruption in his organization and if need be get external help to that end. He simply cannot maintain the current status quo where large amounts of money are being used for the personal benefit of the power brokers within the Palestinian Authority. They must not speak with forked tongues. They have to speak for peace and they have to speak for their people.

If the leadership of the Palestinian Authority is not prepared to do that fairly, then it should leave. Similarly, if the leadership in Israel is not willing to actively engage the Palestinians in an honest and fair fashion, then it should be removed. Individuals who are willing to talk peace in a tough but fair-minded way for both groups should stay.

In the end we will not resolve the problem of terrorism that affects us all unless we are willing to deal with the root causes of this situation and unless we are willing to deal not only with the situation in Palestine, but also the situation in Saudi Arabia where there has to be a liberalization of power and a sharing of resources. We should engage also in improved bilateral relations with middle eastern states.

An intelligent thing to do would be to co-opt or work with middle eastern countries, Muslim countries, and have them work with groups in the west as a united front for peace. Both groups in combination, the west and middle eastern Islamic countries, could work together to put pressure on both sides in a united fashion.

Last, I encourage the government to look at Prince Abdullah's peace proposal. It is a very sensible one. It is certainly a base line which we could work toward.This could work toward security not only for the people of the Middle East who desperately need it, both on the Jewish side and the Muslim side, but also for the international community at large.

[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.

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with rapt attention to the interventions by my hon. colleague from Kings--Hants on this important legislation. I certainly find myself agreeing with most of the points he raised in opposing the bill and, in particular, the issue he raised about this timeframe of 45 days whereby the cabinet of government, perhaps even the Prime Minister, might be kept in the dark about issues that certainly should be brought to their attention and should have more support than simply one cabinet minister.

As he correctly pointed out, there have been a number of occasions where decisions made by cabinet ministers, in particular the Minister of National Defence, have caused great concern regarding their judgment and whether they passed information on to appropriate colleagues and indeed to the Prime Minister. When Canadians have seen that in the past, they should be very concerned about giving those ministers, those types of individuals, greater power under this bill.

One of the things that concerns me about Bill C-55 is that in some areas I think the government, as usual, goes too far and in other areas it does not go far enough.

One example that comes to mind is in the area of properly screening individuals who enter our country. I would suggest that in many cases the ones who intend to sneak into the country have bogus documents. They get on the airplane, land here and somehow en route the documents go missing. Yet in this legislation there is no provision to immediately deport those individuals out of the country. Instead, once they land here they have all the rights and privileges of citizens. The charter kicks in and we are stuck with them. In many cases they are not detained, they go underground, go missing, sneak into the United States or whatever.

In the limited time left for questions and comments, I wonder if the hon. member would like to address that particular area of concern. I know it is of great concern to Canadians, especially since 9/11.

[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, the point I was making is that Canadians expect us, through the RCMP and CSIS, to ensure people involved in terrorist and criminal activities are caught. This would happen under Bill C-55. If we asked ordinary Canadians anywhere in the country I think they would agree.

[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, for the benefit of the parliamentary secretary, I am going to reread the heading from La Presse : “Privacy Commissioner Condemns Bill C-55”. It does not say “Supports Bill C-55”.

The privacy commissioner, who was appointed by the government, is the best qualified to tell Canadians and Quebecers whether their privacy is protected, and he is the one telling us that he condemns Bill C-55.

Now that he has given his fine explanations, can the parliamentary secretary tell us whether the government will amend Bill C-55 or simply withdraw it and prove the privacy commissioner right?

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, no one ever said it was easy to govern. It is not easy to govern in light of September 11. It is not easy to govern in light of the terrorist threats occurring around the world. As a government we must provide the leadership that is required in a world where terrorism is a reality. We must bring forward measures that on the one hand ensure privacy, reason and balance, but on the other hand ensure safety and security is paramount for Canada and for Canadians wherever they are.

Canadians expect no less from us. They expect their government to act with leadership. Canadians expect us to act with our international partners in the interests of their safety and the safety of their children. They expect us to do so while being cognizant of the privacy guaranteed under the charter of rights and freedoms, the constitution and the statutes that have come through the House since 1867.

At the end of the day we as a government have provided that kind of leadership. We have ensured a balance. Bill C-55 would respect privacy and the great charter of rights and freedoms while helping ensure safety and security for Canadians and others in the world.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada talked about balance. Yet the privacy commissioner has said there is no balance in Bill C-55. He says it is draconian and would go too far in curtailing the civil liberties of Canadians. On top of that the Prime Minister has said he is willing to fast track the bill. I assume the parliamentary secretary thinks that is fine too.

Where is the balance between those two statements?

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question because it allows me the opportunity to tell the House that in coming forward with the amendments the government has had to do a fine balancing act. On the one hand we have an obligation to provide safety and security not only for the country as a whole but for all Canadians wherever they live. On the other hand we are conscious that we must protect the privacy of Canadians, hence the fine line.

The amendments in Bill C-55 would protect the rights and privacy of Canadians while meeting our international obligations. They would meet the threats terrorists pose not only to us as a North American nation but to the United States and other freedom loving countries. We need to work in co-operation with other countries. We need to use federal agencies such as the RCMP and CSIS to ensure we do this in an effective and efficient manner without getting into grievous and unwanted privacy concerns. Bill C-55 would allow us to do precisely that.

Doing this will require a lot of balance. That is precisely what Bill C-55 represents. It is conscious of the values that are important to Canadians. It is conscious of the charter of rights and freedoms and what it represents for the vast majority of Canadians. At the same time it would ensure more safety and security. It would give the RCMP, CSIS and others in co-ordination with our international partners access to the tools and information needed to ensure security not only in Canada but worldwide. At the end of the day we have done precisely that. The government should be applauded for having brought forward good legislation which we can enforce.

[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.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, today and tomorrow we will continue with Bill C-55, dealing with public safety. If that is completed, we would turn to Bill C-47, dealing with excise.

Next week we will have the unusual pleasure of three days, Monday, Tuesday and Thursday, as allotted days for opposition debate. On Wednesday we will return to business unfinished this week, including Bill C-5, species at risk.

I would like to designate Tuesday evening of next week as the first evening for consideration, in committee of the whole, of estimates, pursuant to Standing Order 81.4(a). I would also advise that consultations are ongoing with regard to holding certain take note debates on Wednesday evening of next week.

Privilege

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

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I checked and I was unable to find any MPs who had received so much as an e-mail from the privacy commissioner outlining or even suggesting his concerns about Bill C-55.

I will skip over a bit if you wish, Mr. Speaker, and I say first that my rights as an MP were abrogated because I did not get timely access to the privacy commissioner's urgent views on legislation that was then before the House. If that is not an abuse of my ability to act as an MP, I do not know what is.

Second, my rights are being abrogated because the privacy commissioner is using his press releases and media interviews to pose as the champion of privacy at the expense of MPs. His message is consistent and clear. He must speak up to defend privacy because MPs cannot be trusted to do so. That is what he is saying.

In the privacy commissioner's press release, which I offer for your perusal, Mr. Speaker, you will note that the commissioner concludes by saying that his concerns are of the greatest gravity and it is his duty to seek explanation or amendments to the law. Amendments? Where is it written in the law that--

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege to complain that contempt has been shown to parliament and my rights as an MP have been abused by the privacy commissioner when yesterday he chose to express his concerns about Bill C-55 by issuing a press release and giving media interviews before and without reporting those concerns to parliament as he is enjoined to do by sections 38, 39 and 40 of the Privacy Act.

I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that section 38 says that the privacy commissioner shall submit a report on the activities of his office once a year. Where a matter is of such urgency or importance that it cannot be deferred to the year-end report, section 39 gives the commissioner the option of making a special interim report to parliament. Section 40 says that these reports must be transmitted to the Speakers of the House and the Senate for tabling in those Houses.

In writing about Bill C-55 in the aforementioned press release, the privacy commissioner uses language such as “a dramatic expansion of privacy-invasive police powers without explanation or justification” and “practices similar to those that exist in totalitarian societies”.

These are extreme and troubling statements. Surely, if they truly do reflect the privacy commissioner's concerns, they are matters of importance and urgency that should have been reported to parliament as provided for in section 39. Instead, within not much more than an hour after the Minister of Transport opened second reading debate on Bill C-55, the privacy commissioner issued an elaborate press release to all major media by fax and other means, condemning a very specific aspect of one section of the bill. By late afternoon the commissioner, one Mr. George Radwanski, was being interviewed on national television.

Mr. Speaker, the direction in sections 38, 39 and 40 of the Privacy Act is clear. If the privacy commissioner has an important concern, he shall report it to parliament and he may do it any time depending upon the emergency of the matter. Not to do so, to choose to share his concern with the media first by a wilful and deliberate press release, is as eloquent a demonstration of contempt of this place as ever this House might see.

I remind you, Mr. Speaker, the privacy commissioner is an officer of parliament. The position is created by statute and subject to statute. To ignore both the intent and the spirit of the Privacy Act and his responsibility to report to parliament is unacceptable behaviour on the part of the privacy commissioner. The affront, I point out, is directed at both Houses in that the act requires the privacy commissioner to report to both the Speaker of the House and the Speaker of the Senate.

Furthermore, the reason why officers of parliament report to the Speaker is so that you can table the reports in the House. You do that, Mr. Speaker, so that MPs can access their expert opinions to better understand all aspects of legislation being considered in the House and in committee. The earlier such reports are tabled, the earlier and more completely the opportunity MPs and senators have to use them to positively contribute to creating the best laws possible for Canadians.

Mr. Radwanski's views on Bill C-55, by virtue of his position as a privacy commissioner, are exquisitely relevant to debate on a bill like Bill C-55. I was looking for and expecting to hear of them, though probably at committee stage. Instead I learned of his views when I was scrummed yesterday after question period.

“Had I read the press release”, I was asked. “Do you think the bill goes far beyond anti-terrorism?” I was also asked. Not only had I not read the press release, I had not even received it. It went only to the media--

Public Safety Act

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-55 allows the Minister of National Defence to create military zones without having to reveal their location to anyone. This means that, based on the wording of the bill, some citizens could find themselves inside a military zone without knowing it.

Could the Minister of National Defence tell us exactly what will happen to people who find themselves in such zones without knowing it, since they could be expelled by force without knowing why? Is this not interfering with people's freedoms?

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

Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister realize that, while he remains unfazed by the highly negative comments from the privacy commissioner on Bill C-55, and passes on to the courts the responsibility for resolving this, certain of the rights of citizens involved in these military zones will remain suspended, in particular the right to institute civil proceedings?

Is this acceptable in a country where rights and freedoms are supposed to be properly protected?

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister made a statement that was as unexpected as it was inappropriate, in connection with Bill C-55 on public safety.

He indicated that, should Bill C-55 be bad legislation, the courts will say so and it will be corrected.

Does the Prime Minister realize that it is totally irresponsible for the leader of a government to slough off his responsibilities right from the get go onto the courts?

[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.

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

More tools, Mr. Speaker.

Unrest over Liberal bills such as species at risk, cruelty to animals and now Bill C-55 indicate that not all is well in the Liberal kingdom. Leadership candidates are beating the bushes. Backbenchers are restless and sabre rattling. The loyal subjects are not happy. They figured out their emperor has no clothes. Liberal colleagues relegated to the hinterland of the sultan of Shawinigan's caucus feel Bill C-55 in its entirety does not belong at the transport committee.

We know the Prime Minister will not listen to the opposition or his compliant watchdogs, but will he heed his caucus, divide up Bill C-55 and send it to the appropriate committees?

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

Mr. Speaker, even the Liberal appointed privacy commissioner strongly condemns Bill C-55, calling it totalitarian. It is also disturbing and draconian in nature, yet another example of a Liberal power grab. Once again parliament is becoming a clearing house for prime ministerial decrees. The concentration of unchecked arbitrary power will increase under Bill C-55.

Why does the Prime Minister feel it necessary to infringe on the rights of Canadians? Why is he so intent on having his legislation and his government avoid parliamentary scrutiny?

Public Safety Act, 2002

[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.

[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.

[Rick Casson, Canadian Alliance, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to take part in the debate today on the new bill the government brought forward, Bill C-55. It replaces a couple of other attempts the government made to address the issue of security.

I do not feel Canadians who read the bill would feel one bit more secure. The safety and security of the citizens of a country is the number one job of a government and in this instance they have been let down.

The bill is an omnibus bill that addresses 19 different acts of parliament in nine ministries, all lumped together into one bill brought forward by the transport minister. It is to be dealt with by one committee and we feel therein lies one of the greatest problems. The bill should be split so that each area would be dealt with by the ministry or committee to which that section pertains.

We support some of the things that are being addressed in the bill but one of the factors of real concern is the extra special powers given to ministers without prior approval by cabinet, or furthermore, by the House. The ministers affected are: environment, health, fisheries and oceans, transport, justice and immigration. It would give them an interim order ability which would give them more power to act without any consultation with cabinet or parliament. However, the general increase in authority is not accompanied by any new specifics or assumptions of the responsibility of the minister concerned.

We have the ability to create the special situation but we do not have the coinciding responsibilities to which the minister must adhere to in carry it out. That is one of the things that needs to be addressed. We were hoping for that and maybe when we get into discussion in committee some of these things could be brought up. Certainly more than one committee needs to address the issues in the bill, not just transport.

We talk about the $24 charge for a round trip ticket to increase security at airports. I fly quite regularly. There are no X-ray machines at Lethbridge. Carry-on baggage is checked by hand and I joke with the people who do it that if I am ever missing anything they should remind me and I could go home to get it. They are getting quite familiar with my belongings.

We asked the minister to explain to us in detail what the $24 per head would bring to the airport, specifically Lethbridge in my riding. We have not seen anything concrete come of that. We have some 60,000 passengers, and times $24 is a large amount of money. What will the government do to make us feel more secure when we travel?

This whole thing is in response to the terrible crimes that were committed on September 11. It has taken our government eight months to come up with a bill that will be debated, and go on for I do not know how many more months, to address the situation of security in Canada. That is not acceptable.

It is a situation in which we now exist. It could happen in Canada at any moment if we are not vigilant. Yet we are still fudging around with the laws that would allow our country to protect itself better.

There is the issue of some of the defence measures that would create special military zones. I support that and I believe our party supports it to some degree but we need some definition of it. There has been concern raised as to what it would entail. If a military vehicle were to be parked somewhere could one go in to protect it by using any means thus getting around the whole issue of creating a special security zone?

These are points that need definition. We do not see it in the bill. Somebody should be bringing that forward to allay some of the fears that it will be abused. If indeed it is intended to protect military equipment, if we have ships or whatever that need to be protected, then let us define that and make sure that is what it is doing.

The issue of money laundering is a whole separate problem this country has that needs to be addressed but that is in the bill.

One thing too is job protection for people who are called up from the reserves. That is important. We have a competent, capable and willing reserve contingents in this country. When they get called up it almost goes without saying that the job they had should be protected while they are performing that special duty.

We talked about taxes, special levies, airport fees, and this $24 security tax. One set of figures brought forward dealt with a flight from Calgary to Edmonton where the actual cost of the ticket was $100 and it was $188 by the time we were finished paying for it. It cost 88% more on top of what the actual ticket was when all the fees were added on.

This $24 charge is causing some problems. Lethbridge has an operation called Integra Air that flies directly from Lethbridge to the municipal airport in Edmonton. It is a small operation but it offers a service that is well subscribed to. This $24 fee has made it revisit some plans it was looking at for expansion into Calgary to connect to some WestJet flights. It is unfortunate when a levy such as this adversely affects the future plans or the operating plans of a company in Canada. We need to look at what we are doing and what we are getting for that $24.

I know the transport minister has addressed this issue to some degree saying that any cases like this would be looked at. He wants to know when an operation has been affected by this $24. We have brought that to his attention so we will be watching him carefully to ensure that it is addressed.

We have seen omnibus bills before. Bill C-15 was one of those. We eventually split into Bill C-15A and Bill C-15B. We had issues that dealt with the protection of children from predators and pedophiles, cruelty to animals legislation, and regulations affecting the gun registry. We fought to separate those issues, some of which we supported. They were put into Bill C-15A and we supported it and moved forward. We are still debating and have some problems with Bill C-15B

I would like the government to consider that aspect. We should quickly put into place certain issues without holding up the entire bill because of some aspect of it that we do not particularly like. It should be done in a way that reflects the powers of each ministry so that the committee and the minister responsible for that particular section deal with it in a very direct way.

I wish to mention the issue of documents. Every time we ask questions of the immigration minister he would sooner return an attack. I guess he believes that the best defence is a strong offence. The issue is about people travelling on airplanes. We must know who they are. What happened on September 11 was that terrorists used planes and the people on them as virtual bombs to attack the United States.

We must know who is on those planes. Are they a threat to the people on the plane and the people on the ground? The ability to collect documents, to identify, to share that information with law enforcement agencies, and to pass that information on to the RCMP and CSIS is critical. Without that how can we possibly feel that the bill would work?

There are a lot of issues to be addressed. It has taken a long time to get this far which is unfortunate. The United States was able to put a bill forward very quickly. The government has been trying to mirror that for eight months now and it does not have it right yet. Hopefully some of the suggestions that are coming out in the debate today will be taken to heart so that when it is finally passed the bill will reflect what Canadians truly need.

[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.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before answering the question, I want to congratulate the hon. member on the quality of his French, since this is the first opportunity I have had to tell him publicly. I really admire people who make an effort to speak French. I also want to tell him that he may not have heard me speak English, but I can do it. It is important to have the benefit of speaking both languages.

As for the hon. member's question, it is true that, at times, including for G-8 meetings and so on, we could have a decree requiring the establishment of a military zone. If I am not mistaken, during the summit of the Americas held in Quebec City, there was a great deal of co-operation between the Quebec government, the city and the federal government.

The problem with Bill C-55, which is before us today, is that neither the province nor the city would be consulted. Not only would they not be consulted, but there is also no requirement to have an agreement. This means that a single person, not cabinet, the Liberal Party or the House of Commons, but a single person would have the power to unilaterally decide to create such a zone, and that person is the Minister of National Defence.

As far as we are concerned, this is totally unacceptable, and this why we want a safeguard, namely the consent of the city and the provincial government to establish such a zone.

[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.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for giving me the opportunity to point out that, since the crisis first began on September 11, the Bloc Quebecois has behaved properly. When I say properly, and particularly responsibly, I mean that in the early days following the attack, we supported the Liberal government and the Prime Minister, saying that we must join forces in the face of international terrorism.

Then things began to evolve. Bills were introduced here in the House. In our opinion, at a certain point, the government crossed the line and began to limit citizens' rights and freedoms. That is the opinion of the Bloc Quebecois and of other parties in the House.

Our behaviour has been reasonable. In a parliamentary system such as ours, I believe we are allowed to differ. That said, I do not wish to denigrate the entire Liberal government, because it has made efforts: $8.8 billion has been earmarked for security.

I merely wish to remind it that only $1.2 billion of that amount was earmarked for the Canadian Forces. We know that the Canadian Forces are having problems. They need a lot of materiel and cannot afford it. Everyone says that this amount may not be enough. This will come up again when we ook at the business of supply next week.

As for the rest of the $8.8 billion to which the hon. member has referred, I would also remind him that there is still much to be done. There is still the matter of the customs officers, the typical example I like to refer to often.

Today, if a customs officer confirms by computer that he is dealing with a dangerous individual who is being sought, the directive is to let him through and then to alert the police. The hope is that the police will nab him on the other side of the border.

There is still much to be done. The government has not done enough on certain aspects and it has gone too far with others, as far as rights and freedoms are concerned.

As for Bill C-55, which we are looking at today, we still say that, if the terrorists see that Canada has now restricted rights and freedoms to the extent of having a negative effect on its citizens, they are going to be delighted.

I am not saying that nothing should be done, but I do believe that, with the antiterrorism bill and with Bill C-55, the government is overstepping the line, to the great delight of the terrorists and the detriment of the people of Canada and Quebec.

[Grant McNally, Canadian Alliance, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will ask my hon. colleague a few questions that came up during the speech of her colleague the hon. member for Scarborough--Rouge River. He indicated that he thought the bill might best be studied in the justice committee. Does the hon. member agree?

The hon. member for Scarborough--Rouge River talked about interim orders. He said that under Bill C-55 they would be tabled in parliament within 15 days and published in the Canada Gazette in 23 days. He seemed to indicate it should happen much sooner, perhaps within a few days of an interim order being brought into place. I agree. Does the hon. member agree?

Does the hon. member believe Bill C-55 is necessary to achieve public security? Some have argued in the House that we already have the Emergencies Act which encompasses a lot of the measures Bill C-55 proposes to put into place.

Under Bill C-55 interim orders could be implemented at the discretion of officials as granted to them by a minister of the crown. The interim orders would expire in approximately 100 days. The hon. member's colleague from Scarborough--Rouge River had problems with that. He did not think it appropriate that interim orders be renewed once they have expired. Does the hon. member agree?

[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, I thank the member for the excellent opportunity. I appreciate it.

I want to go back to some of the concerns about money laundering here in Canada. One report referred to the scheme as black peso money laundering. I will explain the system. I wrote down some points and I was hoping I would have time to talk about it.

This is part of what happens with terrorism and organized crime. Drug traffickers require pesos to pay for their lavish lifestyles in Colombia but most of their money is in United States dollars. They sell their United States dollars usually for 20% or 30% less than the exchange rate to Colombian based companies in exchange for local currency. The companies in turn buy commodities that are then sold in their stores. They have received the currency exchange. The companies have stocked their shelves with commodities and the laundering continues.

The black peso system is but one new cat and mouse game of money laundering that is played between criminals and law enforcement officials. It is next to impossible to enforce.

An investigative researcher claims that as a result of Bill C-22, criminals will become more violent and intimidating when trying to coerce individuals. This expert stated with regard to the Mafia:

Before C-22, you had guys taking big bags of money to a friendly corrupted bank manager, who would get a percentage for facilitating the transaction. But now the risk and the penalties are so great that fewer people will be willing to co-operate, so the criminals will either take control of some financial institutions or resort to strong arm tactics.

Furthermore, given that Bill C-22 requires any cash transactions of $10,000 or more be reported to the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre, there will be the introduction of what I previously mentioned as smurfing within Canada.This is the practice where the elderly fall prey within our country. It is going on right now.

I would suggest that Canada does not have the resources or the expertise to deal with the extent of the raising of dollars for terrorism or organized crime. There is a lack of resources in CSIS and the RCMP.

There is really no opposition to part 16 of Bill C-55 which amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to allow for greater sharing of information. However we do remain opposed to the bill because we believe it has inadequate measures to deal with the onslaught of terrorism that we see coming.

On the question that was posed by my colleague, I want to quickly say that we have no problems with some parts of the bill, parts that would help the RCMP and CSIS to locate and to enforce the measures that are already here in Canada. We want to see more dollars available for the RCMP.

The Canadian Security Intelligence Service has gone from 2,700 and some employees down to 2,100. Why has it downsized? Why are we losing so many individuals out of our intelligence gathering agency? It is because the government has shown a lack of commitment through the years. That lack of commitment is now causing our country and even other parts of the world to be at great risk.

The Senate reports and other reports suggest that there are 50 terrorist groups in Canada. The response from the government is it comes out with Bill C-55, a bill that does not answer the concerns of the RCMP and CSIS.

[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.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, there is not a whole lot of time and I have a number of questions and comments. First, the hon. member indicated the Statutory Instruments Act would apply in this case. Clause 74 of Bill C-55 would add the new section 260.1 to the National Defence Act. Subsection 260.1(7) would read:

Subject to subsection (6), a designation may be renewed

(a) by the Minister personally, on the recommendation of the Chief of the Defence Staff, if as a result of the renewal the designation would be in effect for one year or less; or

(b) by the Governor in Council, if as a result of the renewal the designation would be in effect for more than one year.

Subsection 260.1(9) would read:

A designation, renewal, variance or cancellation is not a statutory instrument within the meaning of the Statutory Instruments Act.

Subsection 260.1(10) would begin as follows:

As soon as possible after a designation--

The last sentence of subsection 260.1(10) would read:

--may be affected by it, unless the Minister is of the opinion that it is inadvisable to do so for reasons of international relations or national defence or security.

It would still give a whole lot of leeway. That is one point.

With regard to the Nanoose Bay situation in B.C., land was expropriated by the federal government from the provincial government. The Canadian government went into a lease arrangement to have a nuclear submarine in Nanoose Bay. The federal government recently lost that court case. Does this allow the federal government to put in an interim order to allow a nuclear submarine in Nanoose Bay? This is something the courts in Canada have said is not allowed.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Madam Speaker, when people buy airline tickets they do not need to have criminal record checks. Let us suppose someone suspected of hijacking an aircraft a year ago in some other country happened to be in Canada, the paperwork had not followed and he or she had not been arrested. Let us suppose such a person went to buy an airline ticket. Surely the average Canadian would agree that a warrant for the arrest of an accused or convicted hijacker is relevant to whether the person should be allowed to get on an aircraft.

The only way we can deal with this is to allow passenger lists to be verified in the usual way by our police forces. They can do this kind of thing using the databases and indices they normally use. This would mean turning passenger lists over to the RCMP and/or CSIS. We do it now with the American authorities so we can fly our aircraft into American airspace. Under Bill C-55 we would do the same thing here. If we did not we would be stupid.

Are there privacy issues? Yes, there are. Everyone who bought an airline ticket would have his or her name on a list that went through a computer search. That is one of the implications of 9/11. We must realize that. We all said it would happen. We all said the world would change. We said big brother would be following right behind. It is here and we must deal with it.

I am not prepared to accept that we cannot find out who is getting on an aircraft because of privacy concerns. Our police make us all more secure in the public interest. We must let them do their job. We must co-operate not only with our police but with police agencies in other countries. We will find a way to do it properly.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to point out my colleague's good speech. He demonstrated a great deal of knowledge on this matter. In fact, it prompts us to adopt 20 amendments to 20 different acts.

There have been concerns voiced on one of the aspects of Bill C-55, which is part of our antiterrorism plan. It is obvious that we will not get rid of terrorism with a little soap and water.

When Bill C-44 was being considered, there was fairly broad support for the exchange of information between our services and the U.S. government. We must not forget that the reaction of most western countries to terrorism is a result of solidarity with the U.S., particularly in this country, given that it is our main trading partner. After all, the United States is our neighbour. They suffered thousands of deaths because of terrorism, which has infiltrated just about every country.

At the time, we believed, and we still do, that exchanging information on passengers to the United States was perfectly legitimate. It was broadly accepted that we should share this information.

With this bill, clearly what we also want is that the information exchanges with the U.S. government to detect international terrorists be done in direct co-operation with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

I would like my colleague to highlight the importance of very close co-operation between carriers and our security services here in the country.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will jump into the debate and continue where my colleague left off. This has to do with which committee the bill should be referred if it is in fact adopted at second reading by the House. I tend to agree with him that the justice committee might be the preferable committee to deal with it.

Some of our colleagues on the transport committee might be wondering why they would not be so favoured or perhaps they might regard the bill as a burden. 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. One quarter to one third of the bill does deal with transportation related issues but the bill, as it appears from the debate here, is clearly more about the issue of citizen-state relations such as civil liberties, constitutional compliance and privacy.

Having sat on the justice committee, I know that those are issues with which the justice committee has dealt previously and with which it will continue to deal as part of its mandate from the House. Therefore, I am rather inclined to suggest either the bill go to the justice committee or that a special legislative committee be constructed and comprised of some individuals from the transport committee and some from the justice committee. The bill would get a better procedural scrutiny in that manner and therefore I do not object to those issues being raised by the opposition.

The manner in which the opposition is addressing the bill is not wholly constructive. There is a lot of exaggerated rhetoric. We all know it is part of its job. The opposition is invited to support a bill but it does not usually. Anything it does not like it tends to react with mock indignation and exaggerated rhetoric. Most of us on this side of the House understand that and most of the issues, and not necessarily the positions raised by the opposition, have been noted by members on this side.

I will address parts of the bill. As everyone knows, the bill has a large number of components involving many federal statutes. It makes it difficult to address the bill easily from a general perspective.

As an example, I read part 7 dealing with the Export and Import Permits Act. It is not a particularly exciting part of the of the bill. One might wonder why that statute would be amended by the bill which is supposed to deal with our response to the terrorist threat. There are reasons related to the export of technology and our protection of technologies which are Canadian or based in Canada and which might in the wrong hands facilitate a terrorist act, either here or abroad. Therefore, the act is being amended.

As a legislator who has been around here for a few years and one who has been fairly picky from time to time on legislation passing through this place and committee, I noted in section 55, which deals with section 7 of the Export and Import Permits Act, that there was a fair bit of discretion being bandied about in the section that would allow officials to give permits for import or export. It simply says: “subject to such terms and conditions as are described in the permit”. There does not appear to be any constraint on the kind of discretion used in setting those conditions.

All our public servants exercise their authority with appropriate good faith. Our job in this place is to ensure that when they exercise their discretion, they do it in a framework that at least controls their discretion and prevents abuse of discretion and the use of authority to achieve objectives which were not envisaged by the original statue which gave them the authority. Those kinds of decisions that might redirect their discretion in that improper way are frankly an abuse where it has ever occurred. I am not suggesting any particular instance of abuse but our job is to prevent that.

As an example, I would like to move now to part 8 of the act dealing with the Food and Drugs Act. This section of the bill is an example of a number of other sections of the bill that provide the authority to the minister to make interim orders to respond to emergency situations. What we are envisaging here is in response to a terrorist act.

Most reasonable people would agree that where there is an incident, the government should have the ability and the authority to respond and respond quickly. In other statues dealing with transportation, like the Atomic Energy Control Act and other federal statutes, authority for public officials to react quickly and to make orders that will protect public safety exists. They are buried in federal statutes and they are used from time to time to protect the public interest.

What we have in this bill is the creation of a whole lot of new sections of this nature, whereby when we conceive of a terrorist incident we in government then have to think through how we could or should respond to those incidents. We create in the bill what we call the interim order. Some people have called it a power grab. It certainly is an attempt to legislatively create an authority for a minister or public official to react in the interests of public safety after an incident.

I will give an example of how it works. It says that the minister may make an order. It should be known clearly that when a statute says that in this manner it is also possible for a government official, as I understand it, to make the order if the official has been designated by the minister to make that order. Those orders will be made by a minister and in may cases by a public official who has been designated by the minister to make the order. It will not be made necessarily by the minister sitting at his or her desk. As I said, this framework already exists in federal statute. There is nothing too scary about that. It is pretty normal.

Let us say an order is made under the Food and Drugs Act where there has been a contamination by a terrorist act. I do not like to talk about these things but let us just suggest there has been a contamination of the food supply somewhere by a terrorist act and it is necessary to make orders to remove food, to prevent public access to food and to protect the food supply and water supply. An official may make that order. That order, under the proposed bill, is to be tabled in parliament within 15 sitting days.

We all know around here that if such an order were to be made on June 28, parliament might not have it on the table until some time in September or October. This is nonsense and whoever has drafted this totally misunderstands the purpose of the section and the way parliament works. If the purpose of the section is to notify parliament, it should say that the order is to be tabled in parliament forthwith or within two, three or five days. Let us be reasonable here. That can be tabled if parliament is sitting. If it is not sitting, then we use what is normally called back door tabling. The order is delivered to the clerk's office in the House just down the hall. That is sufficient as tabling.

I suggest that that must be changed. If it is not changed, parliament in practice could be the last to be advised of an interim order. This is simply not acceptable to me and I do not think it is acceptable to my colleagues.

After the order is in place it can last for only 45 days unless it is made permanent by cabinet, by the governor in council. If the order needs to be continued up to 100 days, it can be done by the governor in council. That interim order continues for 100 days. At the end of 100 days the order dies, and there is no provision for renewal under the proposed section.

I would prefer these proposed sections to state that officials may not re-enact the interim order. They do not say this. Currently one of our committees has a difference of opinion with a federal department over this very issue. Federal officials say the statute does not state that they cannot re-enact the interim order and the committee is saying that it only has the authority to create an interim order and it dies after so many days, so we have a difference there. I would prefer this section to state that the interim order cannot be remade. If officials want to change a few words or change some of the elements of the order perhaps they can remake it, but they should not be able to remake the identical order. If it is important enough to be in place, the governor in council, the cabinet, should enact it as regulation, as an order, and make it permanent.

No matter how that particular order ends up here, it is published in the Canada Gazette after 23 days. We can see how silly it is that parliament might not find out for many weeks that the order is going to be in the Canada Gazette in 23 days. If it can get into the Canada Gazette in 23 days, we can get into parliament a lot sooner than that.

I want to point out something that has not been talked about yet. The right hon. leader of one of the opposition parties said yesterday that there is no parliamentary scrutiny. Under section 19 of the Statutory Instruments Act, every regulation of this nature stands referred to the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. All these interim orders, as soon as they were made, would stand referred to that committee .

This committee scrutinizes all federal regulations and orders except those that are explicitly exempt and these interim orders are not exempt. One of its scrutiny powers is scrutiny of unusual or unexpected use of power, so these interim orders would be reviewed by a parliamentary committee very quickly. The committee has a permanent secretariat and sits 12 days a month, 24 hours a day. It does not work 24 hours a day, but it is fully functional even when parliament does not sit.

This committee, I will remind the House, has what we call the power of disallowance. If a scrutiny criterion is offended, that committee can commence a procedure resulting in a disallowance. I believe there have been 8 disallowances in the House in the last 10 years. A disallowance happens when the committee initiates a procedure to disallow a regulation. These interim orders are reviewable and disallowable by the House under existing procedures, and I refer members to Standing Orders 123 to 128 and to section 19 of the Statutory Instruments Act.

There are a number of privacy concerns raised by Bill C-55. The privacy commissioner has gone public with his concerns about the bill's proposed procedure that would allow police forces, the RCMP and CSIS, access to airline passenger databases. Principally it is intended to allow police to locate people against whom there are outstanding warrants for serious offences, that is, those punishable by five years or more, or immigration warrants.

I must say that I am looking at this issue carefully and trying to sort it out myself as to whether or not we have the right balance. However, I think that the House has already passed a bill in regard to the information sharing power of airlines that makes airlines share that same data with U.S. police authorities. If it is an issue now, it must have been an issue then, but I do not remember it coming up as an issue. In fairness to people on this side and that side of the House, I just do not remember a lot of wailing in the dark here about those provisions. If it is important in fighting the threat of a terrorist incident to provide that information to American authorities so that we can fly into American airports and American airspace, then I would think it is just as important for our federal policing authorities to have that same information.

Right now I am accepting of the concept, but that is not to say there are not ways to further confine the process of sharing what happens with the data and rendering it inaccessible or destroying it if it is no longer needed to protect against the threat of a terrorist incident. I consider that an important part of the bill, I know that the government does and we will watch that one closely.

Now I want to talk about the part of the bill that deals with military exclusion zones. I think we ought to call them military equipment zones. I think most Canadians would be shocked to know that in regard to a piece of military equipment, and as example let us just take an aircraft that lands at a civilian airport, the military does not have any special powers to protect that military asset. Most Canadians would say that is pretty stupid. They would ask if that really means that the soldiers or the aircrew or whatever have no power to protect that asset other than as citizens. However, we must keep in mind that as citizens or military on the aircraft they do not own the aircraft.

I would say that most citizens would see it as pretty normal stuff for the military to have control over the area where the military asset is, whether it is a ship or a plane or some other piece of military equipment. Someone mentioned a jeep. I do not even think that in theory we could get an order from the minister for that. It is simply absurd to suggest that the Minister of National Defence is going to take the time to create an order to protect a jeep in a parking lot. This is silliness and it is hysteria and it is coming from the opposition, but we have already accepted that from time to time the rhetoric of the opposition is hysterical and over the top. It is the opposition's job to look at the edge and sometimes it looks at the edge so closely it goes over the top.

In any event, I suggest that these provisions are quite reasonable. We all should note that the provisions have been narrowed from what they were in the previous bill, which was withdrawn.

It is true that in the previous bill the Minister of National Defence had the authority to create a military exclusion zone without reference to any military assets. The zone simply could be created if there was not even a military paperclip in the zone, but now there are constraints: reasonableness, necessity, and the presence of military assets in the zone. I have sort of knocked this one off my list of areas of concern. The opposition will still suggest that it is the case. They will have to make the case. I have not stopped listening. None of us have stopped listening. We will all be dealing carefully with the bill.

Generally, to wrap up, although the previous bill was withdrawn some days ago, all the components of the bill, save one or two, were contained in the previous bill. There have been some refinements in the bill to respond to concerns expressed by members on both sides of the House. The bill is a much better bill.

As I have indicated, there are questions. These questions can be dealt with at committee. I would suggest that we are not all going to hell in a handcart here with this bill or with any other. The bill is quite a reasonable response to the events of September 11 and the threats that we perceive as being out there, in air transport and in many other areas. I think we have the ability to create a good bill, a statute that will serve the public interest well for many years to come.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough for such a wonderful job of comparing Bill C-55 and the War Measures Act at the beginning of his dissertation yesterday. He was in the process of getting to the requirements of the committee and his beliefs as to where the bill should go with respect to study and witnesses.

The member for Churchill yesterday indicated her displeasure with the bill going to the transport committee and the amendment speaks to that. Could the member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough expand on that? He talked about justice and human rights. There is a real opportunity for the defence committee because there are more security issues in defence in the bill than there are of transportation.

What would the benefits be to either the justice and human rights committee or defence committee and which one would he feel is better suited to hear this particular piece of legislation as opposed to the transport committee?

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair.

I am pleased to have an opportunity to complete my remarks on Bill C-55. I am also glad to know that the amendment has been accepted. It is very much the thrust of the last number of speakers who feel it is entirely inappropriate that the bill be considered by the transport committee.

The number of provisions found within this cumbersome and convoluted omnibus bill predominantly deal with security issues. They touch upon matters which would best be considered by the justice and human rights committee of which you were once a member, Madam Speaker.

That would lead to at least a greater level of scrutiny which would allow members of that committee and the public generally, through that committee, to see what a sham it is for the government to be presenting this bill at this time knowing that the measures currently found in the Emergencies Act lead to a greater level of scrutiny by the House of Commons and a more expeditious enactment of emergency measures should the government choose to go that route.

The Emergencies Act is more timely and more open to judicial consideration. It allows cabinet to be more in the loop whereas under Bill C-55 one could have ministers of the crown, specifically the minister of defence, acting in a unilateral and unchecked arbitrary way.

Yesterday I compared the Emergencies Act and Bill C-55. Clearly there is greater safeguard and an ability for the public to have checks and balances in place that threaten civil liberties. Yet this demonstrates time and again that the government would like to do away with the hassles of coming to parliament and being accountable. It wants to do away with the scrutiny that would take place at a committee level. That is the ruse and the constant effort by the government to bypass or sidestep any kind of accountability. Bill C-55 is perhaps the most blatant example that we have seen in years.

Bill C-36, the earlier terrorism bill, at the very least went through a rigorous and onerous examination in the chamber and the justice committee. I suspect that may be the motivation behind floating this one by members of parliament and referring it to the transport committee where it would not receive the same level of scrutiny.

Headlines in editorials spoke volumes yesterday as to how the journalistic community viewed the bill: “New public safety act threatens civil rights”; “Anti-terror: take two”; and “Freedom will keep us safe: The revised public securities act is still too undemocratic”.

These are damning condemnations. They talk about the reluctance of the government to use the Emergencies Act because it would require all party scrutiny. Scrutiny is extremely important, I am quick to add, to ensure that civil liberties are not infringed upon, that property rights are respected and upheld, and that the private information of Canadians is not infringed upon.

The privacy commissioner, as is often his wont, has made a great deal of noise about problems that he has with the new bill. Yet I suspect that in a few days or weeks when amendments come in he will climb down off the curtains just as some of the other individuals such as the farcical ethics councillor. The supposed watchdogs are really anemic, toothless chihuahuas when we get right down to brass tacks and look at what they do in the wake of very dangerous and very intrusive legislation such as Bill C-55.

I can best describe the bill as one of confusion, an overlapping, cumbersome conglomeration of a power grab by the government. The public safety act, in and of itself, would not allow the government to act in a more timely fashion, nor would it allow it to act in a more safe and responsible way in response to an emergency.

It would allow the government with little consultation or consideration to empower a minister to make strong arbitrary decisions as they relate to a person's privacy and sovereignty over his or her property.

The idea that a military person could drive a tank or an army jeep onto someone's back lawn and declare it a military zone is the absolute ludicrous upshot of what the bill would empower the government to do.

A lot of time and effort went into drafting legislation that would confuse and distract members of parliament from the task at hand. We have before us a bill that touches on dozens of different areas of legislation, nine different pieces in particular. It talks about environmental protection, health, food and drugs, hazardous products, navigable waters protection, pest control, quarantine, and radiation. Where is the transport element in all of this? It should be before the justice and human rights committee. We support the amendment.

[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]

Absolutely. The member mentions the protest in Quebec City. Our whole caucus went to Quebec City, and it was quite an experience for me. I had never been part of a major protest march such as that. I went there a bit nervous because we often get a horrible feeling about huge protests.

There were 60,000 peaceful protestors in Quebec City. One would have thought that a massive armed military would have been needed because of all the hype ahead of time saying the protest would be horrible and awful. The media only showed a few people who carried on some actions. Some human rights activists and social activists from around the world were targeted and told not to show up simply because they might have done something nasty, not because they had done anything nasty, but just might. Should they have been picked up? I do not think so.

If known terrorists were to come into an area and we knew something would happen, I would be shocked to see someone object to their detention. There should be some opportunity to detain them. No one would object to that. However I am talking about the infringement of the democratic rights of innocent people because this body may think they might do something. I wonder if I was on that list because I was in the peaceful protest in Quebec City. Would I be a risk because I protested my disagreement with what the government was doing? Would I be at risk because I did not believe in trade policies that did not ensure that labour rights and human rights were maintained? Bill C-55 scares me because it might do that.

[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.

Terrorism

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

Mr. Speaker, I too rise to support the decision of the government to ratify the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings. This brings to 12 the number of conventions we have ratified.

In this war against terrorism, as mentioned by my colleague from Mercier, we must also ratify the other international instruments dealing with human rights.

All states should be encouraged to ratify international human rights conventions at the earliest possible time, particularly the six core treaties. As well, ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court should be promoted along with a strengthening of the mandate of the court to enable it to deal with terrorism which may not constitute a crime against humanity. In the struggle against terrorism the importance of respecting fundamental human rights and freedoms must be underscored. As Bacre Ndiaye of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights pointed out:

There is evidence that some Governments are now introducing measures that may erode core human rights safeguards.

In some countries, non-violent activities have been considered as terrorism, and excessive measures have been taken to suppress or restrict individual rights--

Here at home the so-called anti-terrorism legislation Bill C-36 and the legislation just tabled, Bill C-55, raise serious human rights concerns as well.

In the fight against terrorism we must do far more to tackle the conditions which give rise to desperation and hopelessness and can ultimately be exploited by terrorists. These include poverty, the injustices that continue in the Middle East with respect to the illegal occupation by Israel of the occupied Palestinian territories, the inhumane sanctions on Iraq, and the continued denial of the rights of the Kurdish people.

We in our party welcome the decision of the government to ratify the treaty. However much more work must be done if we are to effectively counter terrorism around the globe.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, seven and a half months after the attacks of September 11 in the United States, I would like to commend Canada's ratification of the international convention on the suppression of terrorist bombings.

This convention, adopted at the UN General Assembly on December 15, 1997, will improve international co-operation in fighting the problem of terrorism, which is defined as the actions of a person who:

unlawfully and intentionally delivers, places, discharges or detonates an explosive or other lethal device in, into or against a place of public use, a State or government facility, a public transportation system or an infrastructure facility

The 19 states that ratified this convention are committed to criminalizing such acts, bringing those who commit such acts and their accomplices before the court, and co-operating with other states by sharing information in order to prevent new attacks.

When it comes into effect, following the 22nd ratification, the convention will in no way change the fragile, but critical balance between security on the one hand, and freedom on the other. It specifies that the normal rule of law will continue to apply, as will international conventions safeguarding human rights.

With the ratification in February of the international convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism, Canada has now finally signed the 12 UN conventions on terrorism.

The Bloc Quebecois is very happy about this. Terrorist violence only leads to more violence and repression. For this reason, in the days following September 11, the Bloc Quebecois asked the government to ratify these conventions. This is why we supported the principle of anti-terrorism legislation that would allow the government to put these conventions into effect.

However, we deplore the fact that the government took advantage of the climate of crisis to diminish citizen's rights, as in the controversial Bill C-55. The government should have taken its cue from the convention and maintained the balance between security and human rights.

Public Safety Act

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-55 allows the Minister of National Defence to promulgate martial law, even within the precinct of the National Assembly, should he decide to park one of the military vehicles there, and parliament will have no say on this.

The present Emergency Measures Act gives parliament the power to revoke or modify any order issued in an emergency situation.

Could we have an explanation of why these powers are not included in Bill C-55?

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-55 lets the Minister of National Defence establish martial law wherever he puts something that belongs to the military. It could be a tank. It could be a staff car. That martial law applies to the air above and any water or land surrounding the military vehicle. This is drive-by martial law.

Moreover, the minister may choose not to tell anyone the order has been issued. Yet he can fine or imprison any person found in the area surrounding the vehicle. How will a citizen know when the car he is beside makes him subject to martial law and a fine and imprisonment?

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, never have we seen a Prime Minister of Canada so incapable of responding to questions in the House of Commons that he passes his responsibility on to his MPs.

In committee, we all know that the Prime Minister is not there and the Minister of National Defence will not answer questions. The MPs are the ones who will.

Instead of patting himself on the back about his Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as he has been doing for the past two weeks, I call upon the Prime Minister to require his government to respect the rights of citizens. Bill C-55 violates those rights.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the privacy commissioner is justifiably concerned about the powers conferred upon the RCMP and CSIS by Bill C-55, which gives them unrestricted access to personal information relating to people travelling within Canada or to other countries.

Is the Prime Minister going to take steps to ensure that the government respects the rights of citizens, as requested by the privacy commissioner and demanded by the Bloc Quebecois?

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

So the answer is, Mr. Speaker, that the government does not need the bill and it already has the powers it needs. What it wants to do is shut down parliament.

I assume the government intends to have Bill C-55 enacted in its present form. In that case, if the government has to respond to an emergency created by a terrorist threat, which law will the government apply? Will it be the Emergencies Act, which gives parliament some control over ministers, or the new bill, which does not?

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The existing law of Canada, the Emergencies Act, gives ministers all the powers they seek in the proposed new Bill C-55. The Emergencies Act also gives parliament the right to amend or reject interim orders. Bill C-55 gives parliament no right to amend or to reject. It is just like the War Measures Act.

Would the Prime Minister tell us what new powers does the government need that it does not already have in the Emergencies Act?

Public Safety

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-55 gives to the Minister of National Defence enormous power that will be based on his judgment alone, without any real guidelines.

Will the Prime Minister admit that it is worrisome to think that controlled access military zones will be determined based only on the judgment of a minister who, in the recent past, did not deem it important to inform the Prime Minister, the government or the Privy Council that Canadian troops were capturing prisoners in Afghanistan?

Public Safety Act, 2002

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

moved for leave to introduce 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.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Supply

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on today's opposition motion regarding protection of children from sexual predators, an issue that is extremely important to all of us in the House. The implication of the motion is that the government is doing nothing while our children remain endangered. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I would like to note the government's efforts to date on this matter. The solicitor general rose in the House in March 2001 and stated emphatically that he supported a motion by the member for Langley--Abbotsford for a registry of sex offenders, as did all members present. We supported the motion because, as the solicitor general said then, this nation already possessed one of the most technologically advanced criminal history registries in the world in the Canadian Police Information Centre referred to as CPIC.

Further, he told the House that his department would begin evaluating potential improvements to CPIC in the specific area of sex offences, citing the criticism that CPIC was not address searchable by police officers. In a very short period of time he fulfilled that commitment when he announced in September 2001 that a new database within the CPIC system was to be created and it was to be known as the sex offender category. Further, he announced that this database would be address searchable and more, and it would be up and running within a year, funded completely by the federal government.

That is not all that the government has done in recent years to combat the dangers of sexual predators. In 1997 we proclaimed Bill C-55, which strengthened the dangerous offender rules in part XXIV of the criminal code and also created a new sentencing provision called the long term offender. As a result of these changes, prosecutors in almost every province are aggressively pursuing dangerous offender and long term offender options. In fact, since 1997 the number of successful dangerous offender applications has doubled every year.

The 1997 legislative package also created a new category called the long term offender, targeting individuals who are clearly a threat but would not meet the threshold as a dangerous offender. This new designation recognized that released sex offenders who receive supervision and treatment in the community experience dramatically lower reoffending rates than offenders who enter the community at the end of a sentence without conditions for supervision or treatment. In addition to their normal custodial term, long term offenders can be ordered to comply with a further 10 years of community supervision and conditions. This innovative measure has already resulted in over 100 long term offender orders.

In addition, another provision was created in section 810 of the criminal code. So-called community protection orders can be issued by a court and reviewed every 12 months to place conditions on a sex offender even when no sentence is being served. Today these orders are frequently used by police when they have concerns about high risk sex offenders.

None of these initiatives happened overnight. While I agree with my colleagues that this is a pressing problem, cobbling together a mandatory sex offender registry without looking at all the issues, all the details and all the facts will not result in good legislation. The solicitor general has taken a different approach. He has asked his officials to work with all the provinces and territories to fully explore the issue, to determine what is and what is not feasible in the Canadian context, to determine what works and what does not, and to find out where some jurisdictions have succeeded and where others have failed. I fully support this approach. The Minister of Justice completely supports this approach as well, and this side of the House, without reservation, also supports this approach.

Finally, it is obvious to me that all of the provinces support it. Why else would they be participating fully in the federal-provincial-territorial working group on high risk offenders, which is currently seized with this matter? It is clearly of major importance to all of us. Indeed, our provincial and territorial partners spoke with one voice in August 2001 when their premiers unanimously voted to call for a national sex offender registry. They want it, and now we are all working together to design a system that everyone can support.

That collaboration to create a truly national system based on a national consensus is well underway. An effective system can exist only if all jurisdictions work together on agreed upon objectives. That is why we are working closely with all the provincial and territorial ministers to do that. Since March 13, 2001, the solicitor general and Minister of Justice have discussed the issue of sex offender registries with provincial and territorial colleagues on two occasions. As well, a team of senior federal, provincial and territorial officials continues to work to establish the following: a common understanding of the necessary components of a sex offender registry; the principles and objectives of such a system; the respective jurisdictional roles and responsibilities; and the potential charter and privacy risks.

The government has kept its promise to work with provincial partners to examine enhancements to CPIC. Last September in White Point, Nova Scotia, the solicitor general announced funding to develop the national sex offender database in the Canadian Police Information Centre to improve its capacity to keep track of sex offenders. These changes were a direct result of requests made by our provincial and territorial colleagues. These enhancements will give every police force in Canada instant, around the clock access to information about sex offenders who are registered in the sex offender category. The enhancements will be operational by November 2002 at an estimated cost of $2 million in capital costs and $400,000 on an annual basis.

The special category or database will be able to link to other criminal history and police information already contained in CPIC by doing a name search. Provinces will be able to enter that information in the sex offender category so that the information is shared with all police forces across the country, something that is long overdue. The new category would allow police to conduct a sophisticated search according to a current address and the offence of a sex offender or a combination of the two. I am confident that these changes will make a significant contribution to our efforts in seeking a national approach.

Last September, federal, provincial and territorial ministers also asked senior officials to give advice on issues relating to a national approach to a sex offender registration. The approach prepared by the working group on high risk offenders was submitted to ministers last February. While it discusses a number of issues regarding a registry system that jurisdictions agree with, further work is needed to develop answers on a number of fundamental changes. These include criteria to identify registerable offenders and to identify cost implications and potential charter concerns on the elements of a sex offender registry that jurisdictions wish to consider.

At the Moncton meeting last February, federal ministers agreed that they will attempt to bring forward legislation to support a national registration process in the same timeframe as completion of enhancements to CPIC, including the mandatory registration of specified offenders. The solicitor general asked that all jurisdictions work closely together to reach a consensus as soon as possible. I understand that the federal, provincial and territorial deputy ministers will again discuss this in June at their meeting. It is essential for senior officials to continue this important work and develop a common model before deciding how best to proceed. A detailed model will help us consider and hopefully come to an agreement on important matters.

On the issue of cost, we know little about the costs about this point and most of the policy work has been done without reference to resources. It would not be acceptable to arbitrarily impose on jurisdictions, particularly smaller jurisdictions, a system they do not support or cannot afford. We must carefully address this and other fundamental issues in the consideration of a national system while recognizing that not all jurisdictions have the same needs.

In closing, let me say again that the government has done and will do its utmost to protect Canadians. We have made exceptional progress since last March and we will continue to work with our partners on a regular basis. We need effective solutions that we know will work for all jurisdictions.

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House on behalf of the people of Surrey Central and British Columbians in general to take part in the debate on the official opposition's motion regarding softwood lumber.

This is a very important issue in various communities, particularly in British Columbia, where thousands of jobs have been lost, businesses have been crumbling and communities have been hurting because of mismanagement of this issue by our federal government.

Today the Canadian Alliance is using its supply day for the important issue of softwood lumber. It seems to me that all parties in the House are supporting it. It is due to the ineffective, weak and submissive position of the Liberal government that led us into this chaotic situation. The hon. member for Vancouver Island North, who is the international trade critic for the Canadian Alliance and the former international trade critic, the hon. member for Peace River, who has just spoken on this issue, have highlighted some of the weaknesses in our trade policy. I would like to spend some time looking into the background of this issue.

In 1987 John Turner, then leader of the official opposition, said that Prime Minister Brian Mulroney had abandoned his federal leadership responsibilities by proposing higher prices for softwood lumber exports to the United States. The Liberals also said that in offering a 15% price hike as a substitute for a new American tariff, Mulroney sacrificed the national interest to regional concerns.

Back then Turner accused Mulroney of selling out the national interest which demanded that Canada resist the American duty through an uncompromising legal and diplomatic fight. When in opposition the Liberals called on the government to have the matter decided through the forerunner of the WTO, the GATT, to find a solution rather than dealing bilaterally with the Americans who were intent on imposing a hefty duty on softwood lumber. This was true when the Liberals were in opposition. Why is it not true now when they are in government?

Softwood lumber agreements were signed in 1986 and 1991 but when the Liberals came into power they signed the agreement in 1996. In a massive flip-flop Canada signed a softwood lumber agreement in which it agreed to cap Canadian shipments to buy some peace with the Americans. The peace was not to last or we would not be debating this issue here today.

They have been abetted in this by a Liberal government that failed to intervene earlier in the process before the 1996-2001 period when the softwood lumber agreement expired.

Turner called it the greatest sell out in the history of negotiations with the U.S. Today it seems not to be free trade but a managed trade dominated by the bigger elephant. It seems like a veritable capitulation by the Canadian government to pressure from the United States lumber interests.

What is at stake is our sovereignty and ability to create our own resource policies in our country. If the policies of the government are not working we should probably look into reviewing our international trade policies. Unlike the government, the Americans know they hold a stronger hand in any bilateral trade negotiations. Why? Because 87% of our exports are destined for their country. We have the largest bilateral trade with the Americans. Canada supplies about one-third of the softwood lumber used in the United States.

They take advantage of our trade, economic situation and dependency on them. They know that the Canadian government will not be doing anything to jeopardize all this trade by playing hardball with softwood or other industries. Like the Canadian Alliance they also know that the Canadian government is a soft touch when it comes to negotiations.

I was talking to one American senator who was surprised at how Canadians were negotiating with the U.S. He was talking to me in confidence. He said that when Canadians come to the negotiating table they are not well-prepared. When Americans are sitting at the table they are determined to win the negotiations whereas their Canadian counterparts are not fully prepared. They do not do their homework properly to prepare for negotiations whether it is on fisheries, softwood lumber or any other industry.

The motivation of the Americans, driven by U.S. lumber interests, is to keep as much Canadian timber out of their market as possible. The only motivation behind the measures being suggested by the Americans is to drive up the price of Canadian softwood lumber relative to U.S. timber to reduce its supply in the U.S. market. This is a demand and supply situation. This is true whether it takes the form of reduced stumpage fees or countervailing duties.

Part of the conflict arises from the Bush administration's backing of the U.S. forest industry's bid to hit Canadian lumber with billions of dollars in duties. Canadian exports south of the border are charged a 19.3% countervailing duty, a tax applied on imports found to be unfairly subsidized, that the American government imposed on Canadian exporters earlier this year. Then there is the anti-dumping duty of 12.57% introduced in October 2001. Dumping is a term used to describe the sale of goods to another country at less than what it costs to produce them.

The two duties were applied separately in the period since the expiration of the softwood lumber agreement between the Canadian and U.S. governments which governed exports from April 1, 1996 to March 31, 2001. Under the agreement, the U.S. guaranteed market access to Canadian exporters for five years and permitted the import of 14.7 billion board feet per year of lumber without fees. It applied to $10 billion worth of lumber manufactured in British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario and Quebec.

About two years ago, along with the member for Vancouver Island North, I organized some meetings in my constituency and neighbouring constituencies. We met with lumber mill owners and people who were working in the industry, as well as the remanufacturing industry of the wood. I was surprised at how those people felt. They felt that the government was not doing the right thing and they warned the government then. The international trade critic from the official opposition of Canada has risen from his seat time and time again and raised this issue but the Liberals did not take any action.

When the U.S. coalition for fair lumber imports commenced the court challenge against Canada's lumber industry on April 2, 2001, it asked for a countervail duty rate of 40%. When the department of commerce made a preliminary determination in August 2001, a duty of 19.3% was imposed.

The most recent request by the U.S. coalition for fair lumber imports is asking for a 50% duty. It is using this as a bargaining tactic. It is an attempt to gain some leverage for bullying and an attempt to stampede Canada into a bad deal prior to the March 21 deadline. It should not be given any credibility; rather, it should be vigorously opposed.

On March 21 the U.S. department of commerce will make its final determination. I ask the government to stand by its nerve, negotiate with the Americans and be firm on their position to protect our lumber industry. We all know that the Canadian government cannot negotiate with the Americans. When we were debating Bill C-55, the heritage minister threatened the Americans by saying they were affecting the steel, plastic, auto, and textile industries. However, when the stuff hit the fan and they started their offence, the minister caved in.

The Canadian government should not cave into the Americans. It should protect Canadian interests, the interests of British Columbians and others where the livelihoods of people are affected.

I urge the government that if its policy does not work it should change it.

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the hon. member. This issue of softwood lumber is very important for all Canadians, particularly people like me who come from British Columbia where it is so absolutely important to the survival of the province. Many communities in B.C. depend on softwood lumber.

The hon. member talked about the bullying tactics of the Americans. I tend to agree. I have seen it happen on two fronts since I have been in the House, on fisheries as well as on softwood lumber. We have had this unfortunate situation in dealing with these two files with the Americans. At the same time, Americans are our neighbours. I think we need to co-operate and have a co-operative environment on various issues. We need to have free trade with them. We can always create a synergy of our resources and approaches with our neighbours.

First, I would like to know how the hon. member would balance having a co-operative approach, because the softwood lumber issue will be affecting various other industries and many other items on the agenda of co-operation and friendship between our two countries.

Second, how does the member see this hardball approach the Americans are taking with us, such as they did on Bill C-55 in the past, which affected the steel, plastics, textiles and agricultural industries and so on? What impact on other industries and free trade with America does she see as a result of this file not being dealt with properly?

[John Maloney, Liberal, Erie—Lincoln, ON]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to the motion of the hon. member for Langley--Abbotsford on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Justice.

We on this side of the House are unequivocal in our support for any feasible measure that will effectively protect our children, indeed all of our citizens, from sexual predators. At the same time, however, I would urge all members to exercise caution and not jump at any measure that promises a quick fix, that claims to be a cure-all for this most pressing problem. I fear that a temptation in the specific area of sex offender registries is to leap first and look later. That appears to have happened all too often in some jurisdictions that have gone before us.

In fact this morning in the justice committee the hon. member for Prince Albert commented that often we are too quick to pass laws, to push a button that makes us feel good, but we are weak in evaluating and monitoring. Now the opposition wishes to charge forward on this issue. It seems to pick whatever process best suits its political purposes. What hypocrisy.

For example, over the last decade, the number of registries of sex offenders has jumped from a few isolated ones to registries in the 50 American states, in the United Kingdom, in Scotland, Ireland and even recently in Canada, in the provinces of Ontario and British Columbia.

Given the implementation of these registries, one might easily assume that these registries stop sex offenders in their tracks. With all of these registries by now, one might assume there are all kinds of studies that empirically support such claims. Imagine my surprise when I found out that not one single study has been published that empirically concludes that sex offender registries reduce reoffending rates. Imagine my surprise when I found out that in many jurisdictions quite the opposite has happened.

For example, in the majority of states in America that have implemented a sex offender registry, anyone, even those of us sitting at home in Canada, can log on to the Internet and see pictures and addresses of every known sex offender living in that state. In many cases their pictures will be available like that for the rest of their lives. Has that active publication of personal information reduced sex crimes? Apparently not.

Here in Canada where sex offender registries have yet to have any impact on available data, the incidence of violent sexual offences per capita has been steadily dropping over the past few years. This is not the case however in most U.S. jurisdictions that publish the names of sex offenders over the Internet. At the same time these states have all experienced atrocious acts of vigilantism against these offenders. While some may say “Very good, they deserve it”, I and the government could never condone any such system that invited retaliation.

The question is, why would anyone pass a sex offender registry law that to date seems to have had so little positive effect? All too often these policies are drafted in haste, in a crisis situation born of desperation. All too often we have seen an isolated tragedy involving a sex offender and a child which causes an immediate legislative call to arms. In their haste, as has often been the case in this highly emotional issue, legislators fail to understand all the consequences of their emotionally drafted bills.

In almost every single case where a legislative body has passed a sex offender registry bill, the same scenario was played out: a painful and highly publicized case of kidnapping and murder of a child, followed by community outrage, calls for action and passionate speeches calling for new and better tools to combat this problem. Were the resulting registries always the best tools for the job? Was careful analysis of sex offender traits and trends used to model and shape a policy designed to reduce reoffending? Were legislators solely dedicated to finding the right policies? Or were there other factors at play, factors such as revenge, blame and politics?

How well did the resulting registries work? Did sex offenders all stop offending? The data suggests otherwise. For example, in one of the most comprehensive recidivist studies ever undertaken, a recent study by the National Center on Institutions and Alternatives looked at over 45,000 historical sex offenders in the United States and concluded that 87% of these convicted offenders do not commit another sex offence after release. This rate is substantially better than that observed for other forms of property and violent crimes. Yet sex offender registries typically target 100% of convicted offenders regardless of their determined threat or likelihood of recidivism based on a personal profile. In most cases all of these offenders are required to register for the rest of their lives.

Instead of focusing its efforts on, for example, the 13% who are likely to reoffend, police forces in the states that have sex offender registries must spend their resources on monitoring 100% of all convicted sex offenders, over 200,000 of them to date in the United States, regardless of their likelihood of reoffending. Most criminology experts argue that the registry concept is incredibly inefficient.

Many of the American registries are facing a new threat from their state and federal supreme courts where rights based challenges against lifelong mandatory registration requirements are starting to proceed through the appeals process. The news is not great. Many states, including Massachusetts, New York and New Jersey, have had their respective registries struck down in whole or in part as a result of clashes with state constitutional rights, few of which are as stringent as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Certainly there are lessons to be learned from these experiences.

When the United Kingdom drafted its sex offender registry and forced Ray Whiting to register for his sex offence related murder of Jason Swift, how did it happen that after his statutory release for that crime he managed to rape and murder yet another victim, young Sarah Payne? Why did the local police admit that the U.K. sex offender registry, as it existed, was of little use in monitoring the offender, or in preventing the subsequent crime, or in treating the offender, or in investigating and apprehending that offender?

Why did subsequent inquiries conclude that toughening the existing sex offender registry would have had little impact in preventing cases like the Sarah Payne tragedy? Why was it that most experts concluded that Whiting's failure to receive therapy and assistance in integrating into the community was the chief factor that caused this tragedy? Why did the U.K. government introduce in the following year a new sex offender registry law?

What then do we make of sex offender registries? Are they perfect? Certainly not. Are we intent on repeating these types of mistakes? Hopefully not. Can we learn from the experience of others? I sincerely hope so.

The motion before us today is an example of the desire to sprint ahead without having examined all the pitfalls that may lay ahead. The implication of this motion is that the government is doing nothing while our children remain in danger. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I would like to note the solicitor general's efforts to date on this matter. The solicitor general rose in the House last March and stated emphatically that he supported the motion by the member for Langley--Abbotsford, as did all members present, because this nation already possessed one of the most technologically advanced criminal registries in the world, the Canadian Police Information Centre. We know it as CPIC. Further, he told the House that his department would begin evaluating potential improvements to CPIC in the specific areas of sex offences, citing the criticism that CPIC was not address searchable by police officers.

In a very short period of time he fulfilled that commitment when he announced on September 11 last year that a new database within the CPIC system was to be created: the sex offender category. Further, he announced that the database would be address searchable and would be up and running within a year, funded completely by the federal government.

That is not all the government has done in recent years to combat the dangers of sexual predators. In 1997 we proclaimed Bill C-55 which strengthened the dangerous offender rules in part XXIV of the criminal code and also created a new sentencing provision called long term offender.

As a result of these changes, prosecutors in almost every province are aggressively pursuing dangerous offender and long term offender designations. In fact, since 1997 the number of successful dangerous offender applications has doubled each year.

The 1997 legislative package also created a new category called the long term offender. It targeted individuals who were clearly a threat but who would not meet the threshold as a dangerous offender. This new designation recognized that released sex offenders who received supervision and treatment in the community experienced dramatically lower recidivist rates than offenders who were released at warrant expiry without conditions for supervision or treatment.

In addition to their custodial period, long term offenders can be sentenced to up to 10 years of community supervision and conditions following the termination of their custodial period. This innovative measure has already resulted in over 100 successful long term offender applications.

The government also recognized that there were new emerging areas of sex crimes that needed to be targeted specifically. In 1997 and later in 1999, parliament passed important measures to protect children from being drawn into the sex trade. A new offence of aggravated procuring was created, with a minimum five year sentence, to deal with those who use violence against a child and force that child into prostitution related activity. Special protections were instituted to make it easier for children to testify in court against pimps.

Bill C-15A, which is now before the House, contains new provisions that would make it an offence to lure minors over the Internet for the purpose of committing a sexual offence. However, none of these initiatives happened overnight.

While I agree with my colleagues that this is an urgent problem, cobbling together a mandatory sex offender registry without looking at all the issues, all the details and all the facts will not result in good legislation.

Instead, the solicitor general has taken a different approach. He has asked his officials to work with all the provinces and territories to fully explore the issue, to determine what is and what is not feasible in the Canadian context, to determine what works and what does not, and to find out where some jurisdictions have succeeded and where others have failed. I fully support this approach and this side of the House fully supports this approach. It is obvious to me that the provinces also support this approach. Why else would they be participating fully in the federal-provincial-territorial working group on high risk offenders currently seized with this matter?

Canadians must abide by many rules, many laws and many conventions that are uniquely Canadian. The division of powers between federal and provincial governments is quite different from that found in, for example, the United States or the conventions and laws of the unitary styled United Kingdom. We have a constitution, including a charter of rights, that is unique and, while similar, is different from the American bill of rights. Any proposed national sex offender registry can only be successful if it is designed and drafted within this unique Canadian context.

It is for those specific reasons that there are high level discussions taking place among the federal, provincial and territorial officials on what kind of registry system would be workable in the very unique Canadian context. From the issue of charter and privacy challenges, to how information could be transferred from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from computer system to computer system, to whether non-compliance should be a criminal code offence, there are many choices and the solicitor general is looking for a consensus among our partners before proceeding further.

That approach makes sense. If we are going to have a registry, we should have one that works, that is efficient and affordable, that will recognize the impact of the charter of rights and freedoms, that is not in breach of federal or provincial privacy laws, that local police agencies will have the ability and resources to administer, one for which all provinces and territories from coast to coast to coast can agree on a consistent approach, and one that will not drive convicted sex offenders underground with changed identities and no hope of rehabilitation.

In closing, I must decline to support the motion, not because I do not wish to protect our children from sex offenders, because I do, but because I insist that my government does more than just pretend to protect our children from sex offenders. I will not support any measure that is not properly understood, not completely explored and does not receive full scrutiny at every level.

No measure within the criminal justice system exists in a vacuum, sex offender registries included. The task of preventing recidivism by sex offenders needs an effective, multi-faceted approach, from investigation to capture, from charge to prosecution, from sentence to release and, finally, from community supervision and treatment to rehabilitation.

A sex offender registry, in whatever form it ultimately may take, is just one piece of this very big puzzle. It will be no panacea, but if we do it right and do it carefully maybe it can work. If we are careful it will not be a strain on police resources, it will not drive violent sexual predators underground and it will not bring a flood of charter challenges.

I urge my colleagues on all sides of the House to give our federal-provincial-territorial officials a chance to do their work, to reach a consensus and to evaluate the options. At that time we will be in a much better position to know where we should be headed, what legislation to support and how best to make our children safe.

Let us take the necessary time to study the issue carefully and positively. Let is take the necessary measures to enact effective strategies that will protect our children and indeed to protect all Canadians.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Oak Ridges, ON]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion. When it comes to the matter of protecting children and other potential victims from sexual offenders, as an educator for over 20 years I certainly support the motion and indicate that in our society there are no more precious individuals than children. Anything we can do to protect them from the scourge of sexual predators is extremely important.

In a nutshell, it is acknowledged that our shared objective in the House as parliamentarians is to put into place every measure we can find within the jurisdiction of parliament that will effectively protect society from the threat posed by sex offenders.

Because of the importance of this issue, deserving of the utmost attention from all levels of public policy makers, it is only logical that any such registry does not and cannot exist or operate in isolation from other tools and elements in the criminal justice system. These other elements include tough penalties in the criminal code to punish sex crimes, restrictions on parole and probation, peace bonds, treatment programs and crime prevention strategies.

I would like to take a moment to examine the various tools that are already being used to respond to the threat posed by convicted sex offenders.

First and foremost, and in the spirit of prevention, effective criminal laws are key tools and parliament can be proud of its legislative record over the last five or so years in addressing the vulnerability of women and children to sexual exploitation. I would commend the legislative package that was passed in 1997, generally known as Bill C-55, which strengthened the dangerous offender rules in part XXIV of the criminal code and also created a new sentencing provision called long term offender.

Members will recall the dangerous offender system allows the sentencing judge to designate a serious offender to be in a special category based on proof that this individual poses a high risk of violent re-offending.

Studies have shown that over 90% of successful dangerous offender applications involved sex offenders. It was clear that the DO law was a useful tool for going after criminals with long patterns of serious sex crimes but that, given the limited number of dangerous offender designations each year, there were probably a lot more potential DOs out there.

Bill C-55, which was passed early in 1997, strengthened the dangerous offender system. Where it had once been possible to order a dangerous offender to be incarcerated for a certain limited period, the law now required the sentencing judge to impose an indeterminate period of incarceration. The process of risk assessment was streamlined. The amendments also shifted the initial parole review of dangerous offenders from three years into the sentence to the seventh year.

Since 1997 we have seen a doubling of a number of successful dangerous offender applications each year. This is an example of a legislative approach that is meeting the test of effectiveness.

The Bill C-55 package also created an innovative sentencing measure called long term offender. Whereas the dangerous offender sentence targets the worst kind of offenders, as reflected in the fact that we lock them up indefinitely, it was recognized that there were other sex offenders who might not quite meet the high threshold of violence and the risk of a DO but who were risky enough to require an extensive period of supervision.

As specified in the criminal code, sex offenders are clearly the focus of this sentencing category. A convicted long term offender will receive an appropriate penitentiary sentence according to the crime for which he was found guilty, but the court will add up to 10 years of intensive, parole-like supervision. The offender must complete his penitentiary sentence in its entirety before the long term supervision period kicks in. Federal correctional authorities will then add special conditions to the long term supervision order and a breach of those conditions may result in a person being brought back into custody and charges may be laid. This innovative measure has already resulted in over 60 successful long term offender applications.

It is a tragedy that any people, especially children, are subject to sexual abuse and exploitation. The government has declared that the well-being of children and youth is a top priority. In 1997 and later in 1999 parliament passed important measures to protect children from being drawn into the sex trade. The new offence of aggravated procuring was created with a minimum five year sentence to deal with those who use violence against a child and force that child into prostitution related activity. Special protections were instituted to make it easier for children to testify against pimps.

However I must highlight the fact that legislation is not the only solution to the problem of sexual abuse of children. In 1995, in conjunction with the Canadian law enforcement agencies, the solicitor general released a police manual for cases of child exploitation. It is used throughout the country for training. In 1999 the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, working with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, added new guidelines for law enforcement to handle sexual exploitation cases. The guidelines cover intelligence sharing, investigations, officer training and media awareness.

Furthermore, in November of last year the government convened a meeting of federal, provincial and territorial officials to discuss integrated approaches to helping youth involved in prostitution. This turned out to be a good opportunity for workers in the justice and child welfare systems to exchange ideas on prevention, physical and emotional recovery and ways of reintegrating these young people into society. In fact police forces in Canada are steadily improving their ability to deal with sex offence cases.

As another example of progressive contributions to the law enforcement agencies, the RCMP sexual assault investigation course which teaches investigative techniques to members of the force. It is also a forum in which police and social workers communicate and co-operate in techniques to assist sex abuse victims.

In November 1999 the Department of Justice launched an initiative aimed at these citizens who all members would agree are the most vulnerable. The consultation called “Children as Victims in the Criminal Justice System” had the goal of consulting as widely as possible on four areas: deterring sexual offenders from reoffending against children; creating further child specific offences if needed; making it easier for child victims and child witnesses to testify in court; and reviewing related issues in the area of age of consent. I understand the project is closely linked to the government's national children's agenda.

It is unfortunate that abuses continue requiring us to be vigilant in protecting vulnerable groups from exploitation such as the example of pornography. Fortunately, the supreme court upheld for the most part the existing criminal code provisions outlawing the possession of child pornography. However, there is still the risk posed by distribution of pornography on the Internet. I know there are plans in the works to present a new anti-luring offence to parliament which will combat the insidious form of exploitation.

I am providing this background in order to impress upon all members the fact that protecting our children from sex exploitation is a multifaceted approach. It is the process of building on what has proven successful and then innovating with new strategies. It involves and interlinked system of laws and law enforcement, of education and prevention. The initiatives that I have highlight in the House have been tested in the crucible of the streets, the courts and the prison system.

It is evident that sex offenders would be required to register once they are released from prison or penitentiary, presumably at the expiration of their sentence, although that is not entirely clear. Perhaps they would have to register even if they were still serving their sentence on probation or parole. It is important that we know where these people are. It is important that there is a penalty if they do not register. I do not necessarily think the penalty would be financial. I think it would be re-incarceration.

I conclude by saying that parliament in 1997 passed a peace bond measure, section 810.2 of the criminal code. This recognizance applies more generally to anyone who poses a risk of committing a serious personal injury offence. It is not confined to situations where the potential victims are under the age of 14. I commend members to support this resolution.

[Bob Mills, Canadian Alliance, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to talk specifically about the legislation but I think all of us know that there is no registry for sex offenders. There is CPIC, which covers everybody, but most police and certainly the police in my constituency tell me that it does not work, that it is out of date, that it does not really trace these people, that half the files do not have addresses on them and that basically these people cannot be found.

To stand and say that the police know where they are and that we already have a registry is not accurate. We do not have a registry for sex offenders.

In a householder I had 92% of people tell me they were unhappy with the justice system as it exists. I would like to use a couple of examples from my constituency, which I think will demonstrate the level of frustration that the people in my riding would have if they listened to some of the members on the other side.

The first case I want to speak about involves a pedophile. We have them in every riding right across the country. We were advised that this one pedophile would be released in March 1997 into my riding. There was no plan to release his name, his location or any details about his offence. We found out about his release from his concerned ex-wife who notified a couple of people in the constituency.

The person had served his full term. It was his ninth conviction for attacking female children. The youngest of his victims was three and the oldest was six. The person had been removed from a rehabilitation program because he was considered too dangerous. The prison officials said that he would reoffend within a year. The psychiatrists said that he would definitely reoffend within a year. The parole board said that it would not give him parole because he will reoffend. Canadians are frustrated when they hear that sort of thing.

The parents got together and had a meeting. They were not violent or mad. They were not asking for the person's head. They were saying that this was a sick individual and that society should not have to wait for another victim. The RCMP addressed that meeting and said that all it could do for them was to help them street proof their kids. The RCMP told them it would help street proof three to ten year old kids. Has anyone ever tried to street proof a three year old on sex offenders and expect it to always work?

As a result and after an awful lot of pressure, we received a picture of the person and we circulated it to let the people in the area know where he would be.

On April 8, 1997, I asked the following question in the House:

Mr. Speaker, on March 14 a pedophile, who is a nine time offender, was released into the community of Red Deer. I met with over 200 concerned parents in a gymnasium. At that meeting, the RCMP said that this person would reoffend. The prison officials said that he would reoffend. The parole board said that he would reoffend. They say that the next time his crime will probably be more violent. The people in my community, the young parents who were there, asked whether one of their children would be the 10th victim. What message will the justice minister give these parents?

The then justice minister answered my question by saying:

Mr. Speaker, as a parent of young children, I recognize the concern that any parent feels about such an offender or such offences. It is because I am a parent of young children that I drew particular satisfaction with the initiative of which I was part when the government and the caucus introduced Bill C-55 to deal with exactly the kind of case that the hon. member has described.

He went on to say that the bill would solve the problem and that we should not have any worries. It is like what we are hearing now, that we have no worries because the people are being registered.

My supplementary question was even more interesting. I said:

Mr. Speaker, that is just not good enough. I looked into the eyes of these parents and they are feeling scared for their children. They are saying that the system and the justice department are failing them. They are not delivering. This pedophile committed nine other offences. The psychiatrists say he will reoffend. This individual is sick.

The Liberal answer that I got is not good enough. I want the justice minister to tell the people what he is going to do for them. This is happening right across Canada.

His answer was “I shall have to send to the hon. member a copy of Bill C-55”.

The story gets worse. The individuals in our community who were living next door to the pedophile were terrified. I have a letter from a next door neighbour who described what the person was like. The neighbour said “This person then went on to paint swastikas on my building. He stalked me and he was fined $150 for that offence.”

Thirteen months later, what everyone had predicted would happen, did happen. The person picked up two six year old girls who were playing in their sandbox. He did not do it in that community. He went 15 kilometres down the road. He now not only had his 10th and 11th victim, but the system had failed the people of that community totally.

There is not a record of the person. We are not keeping track of these people, and that is what the motion is all about today.

At that point, I again asked a question in the House. In the first question I asked the former justice minister about the nine-time convicted pedophile who was released into my riding. I was told that I should not worry about it. The answer I got this time from the new justice minister was:

Mr. Speaker, obviously the situation that the hon. member refers to is a very serious one and a very tragic one. My colleague the solicitor general and I have discussed this issue and we are going to be looking at it further.

That was in May 1998. It is fine to keep putting these issues off, to keep saying that we will do something and that we do have a registry there. This is happening over and over again. That is why we have to keep track of these people. We have to know where they are. We have to know their addresses and they have to report in. It is not because we are vicious and mean. It is because we do not want more victims.

In another example, a mother, Mrs. Lisa Dillman, called me on Friday. She has two daughters aged five and six. She is the ex-wife of Dr. John Schneeberger who was convicted of raping a patient. He sexually assaulted his 11 year old stepdaughter for three years. He was convicted in November 1999 and is eligible for parole in June of this year, serving less than two years of a six year sentence. This person had put somebody else's DNA in his arm so as not to get caught but the police took a hair sample from him and managed to do a DNA match.

A judge has forced the mother of those two girls, the five year old and six year old, to bring the girls to Bowden Penitentiary for unsupervised visits with Dr. John Schneeberger. Neither the mother nor anyone else can be there. These two young girls will be left in a prison with a sexual offender.

What kind of justice system are we talking about? We need to start talking about the victims.

What will be the psychological impact on these two young girls? The person was actually going through immigration hearings at the time of his criminal hearings and he said that he did not have a criminal record. He lied to the immigration people to become a Canadian citizen. To say that CPIC is working, that it is doing its job and that we know where the sexual predators are, is wrong.

I talked earlier about a truck driver in my constituency who had attacked two young boys aged four and five. He is now driving across the country in a truck with a bedroom in the back to pick up other potential victims.

We are doing nothing to keep track of these sexual predators. That is what the motion is all about. It is about those little kids, about our kids and our grandchildren. That is why we have to get a registry for sexual offenders. Do not throw CPIC back in our face.