Bill C-17 (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

Public Safety Act, 2002

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-17. There has been a lot of worthwhile debate on the subject already.

I will begin by reiterating what the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough said in an earlier debate on this matter:

Obviously the obligation on any government is to govern with balance and integrity to ensure that people's interests are being protected, and certainly the obligation is to ensure that there is a degree of scrutiny over its actions. My greatest concern, and I think it is the concern of many who have already spoken, is that the bill backs away from that fundamental principle, that tenet of justice that says there has to be accountability, that there have to be consequences for actions taken.

I have listened to part of the debate today and those words, albeit slightly changed, have been repeated by just about every member who has spoken to the bill. The member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough went on to say:

I would suggest that this type of legislation can be a convenient tool for government to concentrate more power, more state control, and that state control can impact very negatively on civil rights or liberties. In effect, this type of decision taken could last a year. It is fair to say that this type of power could be described as power for the sake of power in many instances. I think that Canadians feel more cynical and even apathetic to the point of not participating in the democratic process when they see this type of power being exercised.

The comments of the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, the member for Churchill and other members who spoke to the bill indicate that people are extremely concerned and worried that too much power is being put into government hands with too little accountability. Surely as defenders of the democratic process, as representatives of Canadians, it is our job to make sure there is some accountability for possible government excess in any type of legislation that is passed.

The bill touches on 20 different government departments. It amends over 20 acts. This subject, probably more than any other subject that could be raised in the House, is an issue of trust by the citizens of Canada of the Government of Canada. What we see sorely lacking here is any degree or level of trust on behalf of the citizenry.

The bill will affect many acts. Among them is the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention Implementation Act which is there in order to enhance public safety. Part I of the bill is there supposedly to enhance public safety. Part 1 amends the Aeronautics Act. Part 2 amends the screening point in the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority Act and will include emergency directions made under the Aeronautics Act. It also permits the authority to enter into agreements with operators of designated aerodromes respecting the sharing of policing costs.

We have opened up the bill and that is just one part of it. Almost every single act that is being affected here could be a stand-alone piece of legislation.

This is the third resurrection of the bill. It is way too complex and way too confusing to be rammed through the House of Commons. We will affect the Criminal Code, Citizenship and Immigration Act, Department of Health, Explosives Act, Export and Import Permits Act, Food and Drugs Act, and Hazardous Products Act. There is little that we deal with as a government that will not be affected. Anything that remotely affects Canadians is covered under this particular omnibus bill.

The list goes on: Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, Marine Transportation Security Act, National Defence Act, National Emergency Act, Navigable Waters Protection Act, and Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act. I wonder about these supposed security zones and these supposed methods to limit possible terrorist activity in money laundering. Will these also affect the government? Will they affect everyone in Canada? Are we targeting a certain group? Will we use excessive and perhaps abusive powers on ordinary citizens who quite frankly do not need big brother staring over their shoulder? Is this a proposed act that could possibly be open for abuse?

Most people would say that most acts could be open for abuse, but the more complicated and broad, and far-reaching the proposed act is, the more potential there is to be open to abuse.

Part 17 particularly bothers me. It would amend the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act to permit the collection and the use of personal information for reasons of national security. What personal information are we talking about here? We can get that personal information now. I am not a lawyer, but if a police force wants personal information it can get a permit from a judge to wiretap, to eavesdrop, to take pictures, or to even invade the privacy of a person's home to look for illegal or illicit materials.

Everything that is asked for in the bill to my knowledge is already out there, with a system of checks and balances in place to ensure that this power would not be abused. The difficulty with Bill C-17 is that I do not see that same set of checks and balances in place to ensure that the civil liberties of Canadians would be protected. I do not see assurances that the privacy rights that we all take for granted would be protected, that when we get on a bus or an airplane someone is not going to be following our VISA card purchases for that ticket, and that what type of a meal we ordered would not be known. This is incidental information that I suppose may be important to certain law enforcement agencies for certain reasons.

However, all that information can already be obtained. The government can go to a judge and present its case, get a search warrant or a permit to eavesdrop, to tap a person's telephone, and try to find out if a person is carrying out an illegal activity. I have little faith that the government of the day is responsible enough to have the type of wide ranging powers that it is asking for under this bill.

Without trying to sound like I am fearmongering, I do not trust the government to use it judiciously or wisely. It is a serious step and precedent in the wrong direction.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-17, the public safety act, which has gone through a number of morphs over the course of a couple of years. Surprisingly enough even after 9/11 a couple of years ago, we have survived without the bill being in place. Canadians and those participating in that experience on that day did a fantastic job. They were not blocked in any way, shape or form by individuals or different government departments or different organizations. I have yet to hear anyone who objected to what happened. People did not raise concerns over having their rights infringed upon. However, that has not been the case with this bill.

I am sure the member who chaired the committee on Bill C-17 will reflect that the witnesses we heard from the government side, the department side and the police associations felt it was quite okay to infringe on the privacy and civil liberties of Canadians. Pretty much every other person who appeared, all very knowledgeable, respected people in their fields, Ken Rubin, former minister of the crown Warren Allmand, Clayton Ruby, representatives of different civil liberties organizations, representatives of bar associations from Quebec, B.C. and throughout the country, strongly voiced their concerns. This was not some whimsical idea that this was not a worry. They voiced their concerns about the infringements on the basic civil liberties and privacy rights of Canadians.

Those people did not do it whimsically. They did not say they did not agree with putting in place ways of addressing terrorism but there was a general feeling that what is in place already will do the job. Within the bill there are numerous other departments that come into question. There are issues related to the National Energy Board, the Canada Shipping Act, the Food and Drugs Act, biological and toxic weapons, Navigable Waters Protection Act. There are a number of different departments that are tied into it and no one objected, saying in the event of terrorism we have to be able to respond. No one objected to that.

The strongest objections were in the area of protection of the rights of ordinary Canadians. We are not talking about protecting the rights of criminals and terrorists. We talked about Canadians on the street having the basic right of not having a police intervention with them for something as simple as walking down the street or boarding a plane, simply because they are boarding a plane. It was an issue of privacy and civil liberties.

I want to read a couple of comments to give some background as to why there was such concern. Privacy Commissioner George Radwanski said:

It is in fact, of the various concerns you have heard and will hear as a committee, probably the easiest to fix, because it has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on either transportation security or national security against terrorism, which of course are the objects of this bill.

That is very important because numerous times what we heard appeared not to be an issue related to national security or the object of the bill which was transportation security.

And yet, it is also a concern that is crucially important because of the precedents the provision in question would set and the doors it would open, which are of grave concern from a privacy point of view.

I want to emphasize this because of the attitude that if we have nothing to hide, we should not worry about it.

I want to emphasize, in addressing this issue, as I emphasized in my annual report, which was made public last week, that since September 11, I have not once objected to a single actual anti-terrorism measure.

Nor has anybody else in this country.

I regard it as of course unthinkable that, as Privacy Commissioner, I would for a moment seek to stand in the way of any measures that are genuinely and legitimately necessary to protect Canadians against terrorism. I have not done so and I would not do so.

That is the Privacy Commissioner. I emphasize that I believe that is the position of each and every one of us in Canada.

But the provision in question, as I say, is not related to anti-terrorism or transportation security. Rather it is something slipped into this bill that really is quite unrelated to its purposes. What I am referring to are the aspects of proposed under section 4.82 of the bill, and specifically proposed subsection 4.82(11), which empowers RCMP officers examining passenger data, even on flights entirely within Canada, to notify local authorities to take appropriate steps to effect an arrest if they happen to identify anyone who is wanted on a warrant for any of a wide number of Criminal Code offences completely unrelated to either terrorism or transportation security.

The bill, which the government flaunted and I believe preyed upon the fear people had after 9/11, is not being used to address transportation security or anti-terrorism. It somehow wants police forces and other agencies throughout the country to use it for reasons other than what the government says was its mandate in the bill. That is unconscionable.

Mr. Radwanski went on to say:

My difficulty with this, let me stress, has nothing to do with trying to protect criminals, and in fact sorting out this provision would in no way protect criminals. The difficulty, rather, is that it opens the door for the first time in a completely inappropriate, and in this instance unnecessary, way to mandatory self-identification to the state, to the police, for general law enforcement purposes.

When I came to the House I never thought there would ever be an issue in Canada of the police coming up to me and saying “I want to see your identification. Do you have a reason for being here?” I think each and every one of us believes we have the right to be somewhere and that we do not have to answer as to why we are there. If we have not committed a criminal act we should not have to indicate that to anyone.

As a result of this bill and as a result of some of the other measures that have been put in place in Canada, I felt that there was an infringement on my privacy and my rights for no good reason. It scared me. At one point I heard from the Muslim Lawyers Association. I tried to put myself in the position of someone of Muslim ancestry at a time when we were dealing with the whole issue of 9/11, and I felt even more insecure and even more infringed upon as a Canadian. As a white Canadian one would not be targeted the way some other racial groups are.

My riding has a large aboriginal population. Over the years I have seen aboriginal people in Canada targeted with jokes and comments. We know historically that things have happened to different groups of people, but we all need to be honest. It does not usually happen to the white population, and that is because most of us are the white population. The worst case scenarios may never happen to us. As a result we lose sight of the fact that those groups to whom the worst case scenarios will happen have every right and reason to have even more concerns about the bill than we have.

I cannot believe I only have one minute left to speak to this issue. It is a very important issue relating to the privacy rights and civil liberties of Canadians. The Privacy Commissioner listed one real concern and I have given it here. Those same types of comments came from other people who were here representing the lawyers groups and the bar associations. We could all make comments about lawyers in general, but I think we all truly believe in our hearts that they represent the best interests of Canadians within the judicial system. No one was saying that they were going to protect criminals over the rights of others. That is not it. It is that we want to protect all people in Canada from an infringement upon their privacy and their civil liberties.

There is no need for a number of sections of the bill. I quite frankly do not believe the bill has to be in place. I recognize that the government wanted to make some changes which is fine, but on issues related to privacy and civil liberties, they are not acceptable. For that reason alone the bill should not be accepted unless there are further safeguards put in place to protect the civil liberties and privacy of Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time that I have spoken on this bill. Nor is this the first time that the Bloc Quebecois has spoken on this bill.

We have been quite good sports about this bill. We followed it at each stage. We spoke at second reading, we also participated in the special legislative committee that you presided over. Today, it is a pleasure to express our opinion again, because we think that we have much to contribute to this debate.

This bill is the result of other bills. There were several substantial amendments. Initially, it was called Bill C-55. Then it became Bill C-42, and it is now Bill C-17. So, this bill has evolved.

It is clear that the attempts, in the form of Bills C-55, C-42 and now C-17, resulted from the terrorist attacks on the twin towers in New York. Canada said that it would increase security to a certain extent. Provisions were put forward in the bill and were debated by the various parties in the House, and particularly in committee.

There is one other thing we have often heard in this House, which is that we must not interfere with the liberties of Canadians and Quebeckers so much that the people will say that the terrorists had won. We have agreed to slightly increased security, but we have not agreed to let the RCMP or CSIS intrude on the privacy of ordinary citizens. That is why we have been closely involved in this debate.

There were three main subjects of special concern to us in the bill. There was, for one, the military zones. I remember when the bill was first made public, the Bloc Quebecois strongly opposed the creation of controlled access military zones.

At the time, there was a question of having a controlled access military zone wherever there was some military infrastructure. The example of Quebec City was often used. There are military installations in the Port of Quebec and we did not think there were limits. The military zone could be extended to the entire lower town and Quebec,s parliamentary precinct. Thus, there were major problems.

On this, the Bloc can claim a victory, because we were the first to object to the military zones. In Bill C-17, the entire issue of military zones has been dropped. For us, that is definitely a victory.

Still, that does not mean we are now in favour of Bill C-17. There are other aspects of this bill on which we have expressed our disagreement and on which we have tried to present amendments to the legislative committee which you chaired. Unfortunately, our amendments to the bill were defeated.

There is one point we are particularly interested in, and that is interim orders. An interim order means that any minister of the crown can decide on an action to be taken without informing Parliament. What we are also looking at is the evolution of these interim orders, because they were already mentioned in Bills C-42 and C-55.

We are especially opposed because these orders are not subject to a charter test beforehand. For us, this is very serious. A cabinet minister can issue an interim order and does not have to check whether or not it passes the test of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. For us, that is a major problem. We see that the government has tried to make changes in this case, particularly on the duration of the order in council. In Bill C-42, the order ceased to be in effect after 90 days. In Bill C-55, it was down to 45 days. In the version of Bill C-17 now before us, we are at 14 days.

In addition, there is a requirement to table the interim order in Parliament. In Bill C-42, this was not mentioned. In the next two versions of the bill, there is a 15-day deadline. We see there has been some evolution.

The major problem, however, is still compliance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Normally, when someone turns up with an interim order, Privy Council can say “We will have a look at the interim order and decide whether it passes the charter test”.

The fact that this is not made part of the procedure is a real problem. Any minister of the Crown can announce, tomorrow, next week, once the act is in force, “I am issuing an interim order because I deem the situation to be urgent. As for the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that is not a problem, because I do not have to comply with it”.

The minister in question cannot be accused of acting in bad faith. This may be a concern for him, but he is not obliged to comply with Privy Council, and this poses a serious problem for us.

The third aspect that has been problematical for us from the start relates to the whole business of exchanging information on air travellers. We know that even the Privacy Commissioner has had a number of negative comments to make on this aspect of the bill. Once again, in committee we tried to modify the provisions of the bill that we are looking at today, in order to ensure some degree of privacy for Canadians.

I was not particularly satisfied with the responses we got from the RCMP and CSIS on their ability to gather information on me when I was flying and then pass it around as they pleased. There were two things that particularly bothered us. The RCMP could use personal information on all air passengers for the purpose of seeking out individuals who are subject to a warrant for any offence punishable by imprisonment for five years or more.

The government was somewhat sensitive to our position on this. It made one step toward improvement, but to our minds did not go far enough. It wanted to have this information passed on to a law enforcement officer, but this was still a problem for us because it was up to the RCMP to determine whether or not to refer. It is one and the same thing whether the RCMP or a law enforcement officer makes the arrest based on information provided by the RCMP. In our opinion, it comes down to the same thing. As a result, the privacy of airline passengers is being violated, and this is of major concern to us.

As for information sharing, the other aspect that concerned us was the fact that this information was being retained. We were not reassured with respect to the relevance of retaining this information for the length of time laid out in the bill. We tried to speed up the process, to have this information destroyed sooner. Unfortunately, every motion that we moved to do so was defeated in committee.

I would like to quote from parts of the press release issued by the privacy commissioner, Mr. Radwanski. He is very concerned. Not much has changed since his press release. Since I have two minutes left, I will quote him. He believes there is:

—only minimal and unsatisfactory change, in the replacement legislation, Bill C-17.

The commissioner also said that:

The provision in question, section 4.82 of both bills, would give the RCMP and CSIS unrestricted access to the personal information held by airlines about all Canadian air travellers on domestic as well as international flights.

That is what I explained earlier. We agree with the position of the privacy commissioner. He is worried, and I quote him:

that the RCMP would also be expressly empowered to use this information to seek out persons wanted on warrants for Criminal Code offences that have nothing to do with terrorism, transportation security or national security.

Finally, he says that the changes proposed are an insult to the intelligence of Canadians.

The changes that have been made in this provision in the new bill do nothing to address the fundamental issues of principle that are at stake.

In conclusion, we are nevertheless proud to have won on the whole issue of military zones, which are almost completely erased from the new bill. Unfortunately, we believe that the government has not done enough on the issue of interim orders issued by ministers and protecting the privacy of all travellers. In fact, changes were made that do not go nearly far enough to protect the privacy of travellers.

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central to address Motion No. 6 at report stage consideration of Bill C-17, 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, otherwise also known as the public safety act.

Like its predecessors, Bills C-42 and C-55 of the last session, Bill C-17 is an omnibus bill that amends or introduces nearly two dozen acts within the jurisdiction of nearly a dozen federal departments or agencies.

Motion No. 6 is very interesting. It takes the interim orders philosophy in Bill C-17 and ensures that will be included in the Pest Control Products Act in the event of that act getting royal assent before Bill C-17 does. Let us think about this. The Pest Control Products Act was written without interim orders and now the government is so concerned that it has modified Bill C-17 to apply to a bill to be passed in the future. It is fascinating.

In many cases, in the place of specific provisions designed to reassure the travelling public and the public in general, the bill gives four ministers the authority to issue interim orders. A very significant portion of Bill C-17 deals with interim orders. Ten parts of the bill amend various statutes to provide a new or expanded power permitting the responsible minister to make interim orders in situations where immediate action is required. Essentially, the thinking from the government behind interim orders is “trust me”. In other words, it is saying, “Give me various undefined powers and when there's an emergency, trust me to do the right thing”. That is what the minister will say.

First, we cannot forget that the very same government that has taken over 19 months to react to September 11 is the one now saying “trust me”. Second, we should not overlook the fact that if the government really knew what it was doing, it would have clearly defined both its responsibilities and its powers. In the United States, the U.S. aviation and transportation security act was drafted just 10 days after September 11. However, even then, while a shocked America pondered the unthinkable crisis that had just happened, American legislators knew that “trust me” was not going to cut it with the American public.

The U.S. aviation and transportation security act is specific. It delegates powers but it also assigns responsibilities. It contains deadlines. It specifies the amount of money that may be spent on particular initiatives. It sets management objectives and requires regular evaluations as well as audits. It is very specific, not vague like the legislation that we are debating.

There is a clear understanding of who does what why, when, and with what authority. Checks and balances are present. The U.S. aviation and transportation security act is a planned, strategic response by a superpower to a defined threat.

In Canada Bill C-17 uses interim orders while the U.S. uses specifics. The interim orders all follow a similar pattern. They allow a minister, under certain circumstances, to make an order that would normally have to be made by the governor in council. Thus, when the chips are down and cabinet cannot meet, an interim order lets a cabinet minister take actions that would normally need cabinet approval.

In most cases in Bill C-17 the interim order must be published in the Canada Gazette within 23 days, must be approved by cabinet within 14 days, and expire at the end of the year. Similarly, an interim order must be tabled in Parliament within 15 days after it has been made.

Members from the Canadian Alliance, the Bloc, and the NDP tried to propose constructive amendments to Bill C-17 regarding interim orders when it was referred to the special legislative committee. In the case of 14 Canadian Alliance amendments put forward by our transportation critic, who has done a very good job, each was motivated by the spirit of the Emergencies Act. Its preamble reads, in part:

WHEREAS the safety and security of the individual, the protection of the values of the body politic and the preservation of the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of the state are fundamental obligations of government;

AND WHEREAS the fulfilment of those obligations in Canada may be seriously threatened by a national emergency and, in order to ensure safety and security during such an emergency, the Governor in Council should be authorized, subject to the supervision of Parliament, to take special temporary measures that may not be appropriate in normal times;

We therefore thought the standard of parliamentary scrutiny, laid down in the Emergencies Act, might be applicable to the type of situations in which interim orders might be made under Bill C-17. Subsection 61(1) of the Emergencies Act reads:

Subject to subsection (2), 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.

Subsection 61(2) reads:

Where an order or regulation made pursuant to this Act is exempted from publication in the Canada Gazette by regulations made under the Statutory Instruments Act, the order or regulation, in lieu of being laid before each House of Parliament as required by subsection (1), shall be referred to the Parliamentary Review Committee within two days after it is made or, if the Committee is not then designated or established, within the first two days after it is designated or established.

Each of the 14 amendments was motivated by the same philosophy: if during an emergency, the government can subject orders and regulations to parliamentary scrutiny within two sitting days after they are made, there is no reason why a lower standard should apply to Bill C-17. The Canadian Alliance was not alone in this thinking. A similar philosophy was advanced by the NDP and the Bloc.

It is my hope that the three parties might be able to agree on a common approach so that a higher level of parliamentary scrutiny may be offered to interim orders made by a government that wants us to trust it 20 months after September 11. However, the Liberal desire to escape parliamentary scrutiny appears intractable. Rather than agree to any new restrictions on interim orders, the only interim orders amendment that the Liberal members proposed in committee was the addition of clause 111.1 so that the interim orders would be included in the Pest Control Products Act.

In conclusion, the widespread use of interim orders is troubling. The government's reliance on interim orders shows that even 20 months after September 11 the Liberals are still unable to provide Canadians with the legislation to combat terrorism at home and abroad. Delegating broad powers into the hands of single ministers is a dangerous trend. The committee stage version of Bill C-17 is an improvement over Bill C-42 as first presented 17 months ago, but more changes, particularly in the area of increased parliamentary scrutiny, are required.

Canadians were prepared to sacrifice their liberties for the promise of increased scrutiny and security in the aftermath of September 11. That feeling has faded in the intervening year and a half. For this reason, the government would be wise to carefully consider increased parliamentary scrutiny on the same level as the Emergencies Act if it wants opposition parties to support Bill C-17.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Madam Speaker, I too am pleased to rise in the House and also share with my colleague from the Bloc, who just took her place, the concern and the fear we have with Bill C-17.

We know Bill C-17 is the son and daughter of Bill C-42 and Bill C-55 respectively. It is a public safety act. Some people would claim it to be a public relations act. We are concerned because the sweeping powers that were in the earlier bill are in this reincarnation, a sense that government, officials and authority can do whatever they want, whenever they choose. The privacy commissioner says that the police have all the powers they require now to arrest and detain people whom they suspect, and therefore this is not necessary.

Some of us lived through the War Measures Act. Some of us were at the Quebec summit in Quebec City in 2001. To me, people who are proposing this bill seem to be saying that security trumps privacy, and we have some grave concerns about that.

The member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine commented on public opinion polls which said that Canadians in the aftermath of September 11 were prepared to forsake some of their privacy for additional security. I would say respectfully back to her that for a lot of hard-working Canadians that may in fact be a reality. However it is even more incumbent on those who Canadians elect to places and chambers, like the House of Commons, the legislators and parliamentarians, to ensure that our safety and security laws are there, but that they are there in balance to ensure guaranteed privacy when and where Canadians need it.

On the bill itself, because there are a number of different acts that roll into this legislation, the transport minister's regulations concerning the Aeronautics Act, making powers concerning aviation safety, I concede are better defined than they were in Bill C-42. The lack of specifics in this area was one of the concerns we had about the original bill, specifically our transport critic, the member for Churchill. Therefore we regard this as a mild improvement.

As well, in a feeble attempt to address the concerns of the privacy commissioner, the clause allowing RCMP designated officers to access passenger information to identify those individuals with outstanding arrest warrants has been removed and the bill would now only allow RCMP and CSIS officials to access passenger information for national or transportation security purposes. This too is an improvement. However they may still use this information to pursue individuals with outstanding arrest warrants if the crimes they are wanted for carry a potential sentence of five years or greater.

The privacy commissioner has stated publicly that this change is insufficient to protect the right of Canadians to privacy. In our opinion there are still insufficient safeguards in this current legislation to prevent intrusion, particularly since this information can be shared with American customs officials who currently have a racial profiling policy.

Let me just stop there and, as an aside, tell the House that I recently travelled in company with the secretary treasurer of the Canadian Labour Congress, who is of Arab descent and who travels quite extensively in his job. According to Hassan Yussuff, when he travels through the United States and looks at the people who are pulled aside at the airports for particular and thorough security checks, it is always people of Muslim and Arab descent.

The House heard from my colleague earlier today, the member for Vancouver East. She outlined the concern expressed by the Muslim organization, COMO, with regard to this.

We not only want to protect and ensure that citizens in Canada and people who are travelling here are protected, we also want to ensure they are not singled out, which seems to be the case in some other countries.

One of our major points of opposition to the bill was the clause concerning the military security zones, and it has been repealed. I congratulate the government. In its place the government will use existing legislation to establish controlled access zones to protect naval vessels at three ports: Halifax on the east coast, and Esquimalt and Nanoose Bay on the west coast. These three locations already have military facilities.

On the interim order powers, it now requires an order to be approved by the governor in council within 14 days, not 90 days. It must also be tabled in Parliament within 15 days regardless of whether Parliament is in session. We do not oppose these changes but they are rather insignificant and, in our opinion, do not address sufficiently the concerns we have about potential abuse in this area.

With regard to the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority Act, this act received royal assent after Bill C-42 was tabled. This is updated to reflect that the act was passed. If the government had its act together this section would have appeared in Bill C-42 as a conditional amendment. The fact that it did not, further underlines how the government seems to have been making up its security policy on the fly for many months now.

The Marine Transportation Security Act is another area that was not contained in Bill C-42. It would have empowered the government to contribute funds to port authorities to help pay for new security measures, something that our caucus supports.

The Criminal Code broadens the scope and we will continue to support that clause of the bill. We can also give our support to a couple of other minor clauses.

I would like to go back and conclude with the points that were made by the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine about the fact that with the changes the privacy commissioner can now support what is before us. I am troubled that the bill, which would enact measures for implementing the biological and toxin weapons convention, that there were amendments put forward by my colleague, the member for Churchill, that specifically impacted on the privacy commissioner and which were defeated at committee. Because they were defeated at committee they were not allowed to be debated here in the House.

I just want to pick out one of them. Motion No. 1 stated:

The Privacy Commissioner may review all material received in respect of the transactions described in subsection (1) to ensure that section 4.81 has been complied with.

To follow up on the argument that was advanced by the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, it would seem to me that if the committee has looked at this and the privacy commissioner has been satisfied, then I fail to understand why a reasonable amendment, such as the one that I have just read into the record that was advanced by the member for Churchill, would have been defeated by the Liberal majority on the committee.

Although there are some improvements in Bill C-17 over its earlier incarnations, this caucus, along with others on the opposition side, cannot support Bill C-17 and we will be voting against it.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my hon. colleague on the job he has done on Bill C-17, which was not an easy one. This bill concerns our fundamental rights as human beings, as individuals. I want to congratulate him because he has put forward very useful amendments. Unfortunately, the government rejected them all, as is often the case here, in this Parliament.

Allow me to set things in context for the benefit of listeners. It is not the first time that this kind of a bill has been introduced in the House of Commons. The current bill is a new version of Bill C-55 on public safety introduced in 2002, itself a new version of Bill C-42.

Last spring, our remarks on Bill C-55 focussed on three major areas: controlled access military zones, interim orders and information sharing. These are three vital areas.

Regarding the controlled access military zones, we could claim victory, given that these were completely dropped from the bill. The bill does, however, still contain provisions concerning interim orders, although the timeframes for their tabling in Parliament and approval by cabinet have been considerably reduced. And our main concern, namely the lack of advance verification for consistency, remains.

I have here a press release from the information commissioner. I am sure that no one has read all of it. Let me do so, because it is important and it will help members understand why we have such concerns about this bill.

This news release was written November 1, 2002 by the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. I quote:

Since last May, I have expressed extremely grave concerns about one provision of what was then Bill C-55, the federal Government’s Public Safety Act. This same provision has now been reintroduced, with only minimal and unsatisfactory change, in the replacement legislation, Bill C-17.

The provision in question, section 4.82 of both bills, would give the RCMP and CSIS unrestricted access to the personal information held by airlines about all Canadian air travellers on domestic as well as international flights.

I have raised no objection to the primary purpose of this provision, which is to enable the RCMP and CSIS to use this passenger information for anti-terrorist “transportation security” and “national security” screening. But my concern is that the RCMP would also be expressly empowered to use this information to seek out persons wanted on warrants for Criminal Code offences that have nothing to do with terrorism, transportation security or national security.

The implications of this are extraordinarily far-reaching.

In Canada, it is well established that we are not required to identify ourselves to police unless we are being arrested or we are carrying out a licensed activity such as driving. The right to anonymity with regard to the state is a crucial privacy right. Since we are required to identify ourselves to airlines as a condition of air travel and since section 4.82 would give the RCMP unrestricted access to the passenger information obtained by airlines, this would set the extraordinarily privacy-invasive precedent of effectively requiring compulsory self-identification to the police.

I am prepared, with some reluctance, to accept this as an exceptional measure that can be justified, in the wake of September 11, for the limited and specific purposes of aviation security and national security against terrorism. But I can find no reason why the use of this de facto self-identification to the police should be extended to searching for individuals who are of interest to the state because they are the subject of warrants for Criminal Code offences unrelated to terrorism. That has the same effect as requiring us to notify the police every time we travel, so that they can check whether we are wanted for something.

The Commissioner then said:

If the police were able to carry out their regular Criminal Code law enforcement duties without this new power before September 11, they should likewise be able to do so now. The events of September 11 were a great tragedy and a great crime; they should not be manipulated into becoming an opportunity—an opportunity to expand privacy-invasive police powers for purposes that have nothing to do with anti-terrorism.

If we accept the principle that air travellers within Canada can in effect be forced by law to identify themselves to police for scrutiny against lists of wanted suspects, then there is nothing to prevent the same logic from being applied in future to other modes of transportation. Particularly since this provision might well discourage wanted individuals from travelling by air, why not extend the same scrutiny to train travellers, bus passengers or anyone renting a car? Indeed, the precedent set by this provision could ultimately open the door to practices similar to those that exist in societies where police routinely board trains, establish roadblocks or stop people on the street to check identification papers in search of anyone of interest to the state.

The place to draw the line in protecting the fundamental human right of privacy is at the very outset, at the first unjustifiable intrusion. In this instance, that means amending the bill to remove all reference to warrants and thus limit the police to matching passenger information against anti-terrorism and national security databases.

The concerns that I have raised in this matter since last spring have been publically endorsed by the Information and Privacy Commissioner of British Columbia and the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario; by members of every party in the House of Commons, notably including a member of the government's own Liberal caucus who is an internationally recognized expert on human rights—

I cannot not name that person, but I am sure you know who it is.

and by editorials in newspapers including the Toronto Star, the Globe and Mail, the Vancouver Sun, the Vancouver Province, the Calgary Herald and the Edmonton Journal.

These concerns have now been ignored by the Government.

The changes that have been made in this provision in the new bill do nothing to address the fundamental issues of principle that are at stake.

The Government now proposes to have regulations limiting the Criminal Code offence warrants for which the RCMP will be searching. But this does nothing to address the fundamental point of principle that the police have no business using this extraordinary access to personal information to search for people wanted on warrants for any offences unrelated to terrorism.

As well, in the new bill the Government has removed the “identification of persons for whom a warrant has been issued” as a “purpose” for accessing passenger information under the legislation. But this is meaningless--indeed disingenuous--since the RCMP would remain empowered to match this information against a database of persons wanted on warrants and to use such matches to bring about arrests. It insults the intelligence of Canadians to suggest, as the Government does in its press release accompanying the bill, that the RCMP may “incidentally” come upon individuals wanted on Criminal Code warrants--if the police are to match names of passengers against a database of individuals wanted on Criminal Code warrants, there can be nothing “incidental” about finding them.

Madam Speaker, here we have the commissioner's fundamental reaction and it is serious; he has gone to the trouble of analyzing this entire issue in depth. Therefore, I am very much afraid of seeing this bill pass. I hope that there is still some chance, as we are now at the report stage, of amending the bill and ensuring that no one's rights will be injured.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak today as the Bloc Quebecois critic and a member of the legislative committee that analyzed Bill C-17, clause by clause, proposing amendments to it.

The Bloc Quebecois, which I represent, introduced 49 amendments to this bill. Believe it or not, the Liberals retained not a single one. I am therefore disconcerted to hear Liberals, including the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, who has been telling us that the Liberal members were the ones to ask the hardest questions of the RCMP, CSIS and Transport. With all due respect to that member, regardless of the questions she may have raised, the bill was nevertheless not changed. That is the reality.

They can say in this House that they were hard on the RCMP and CSIS representatives, who I am sure quaked at the questions asked by the Liberals. At any rate, we knew very well that there would not be any major changes made to the bill.

We in the Bloc Quebecois introduced 49 amendments and we did not just pull them out of a hat. They reflect the proposals made to us by witnesses before the committee. I am not referring to those from Transport, CSIS, the RCMP and the police organizations anxious to have a police state in Canada and in Quebec. I am referring to the representatives of civil society. I will reserve for the end the independent commission members, who are supposed to be independent individuals appointed to defend our interests, that is the Canadian Bar Association, the Law Society of Upper Canada, the Barreau du Québec and all the other civil organizations which came and told us that this was the greatest encroachment on civil liberties that Canada has ever known. That is the reality. I will read some of the comments and representations from the Canadian Bar Association shortly.

Nevertheless, I want this to be clearly understood. In the name of terrorism and the war on terrorism, subjects we all agree on, the RCMP and CSIS, hand in glove with the Department of Transport, have given us a bill that will threaten our civil liberties. That is the reality.

I am simply going to quote the words of the privacy commissioner, who is independent and appointed by the government explicitly to protect people's rights. He is not there to protect the rights of the Bloc Quebecois or the members of the Bloc Quebecois. He is there to protect the rights of the whole population. This quotation summarizes in two or three paragraphs what this bill is all about. Thus, the commissioner says, in a letter addressed to the government, and I quote:

In Canada, police forces cannot normally compel businesses to provide personal information about citizens unless they obtain a warrant. Section 4.82 would entitle the national police force and the national security service to demand personal information about all Canadian air travellers without any judicial authorization.

That means, as things stand, that when this bill becomes law, the airlines will provide information—Bill C-44, which was passed last year, already authorizes them to provide information and exchange such information with our neighbours to the south—but the RCMP and CSIS will be able to use it for other purposes. That is what those terrible questions that the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine says she asked of the RCMP and CSIS boils down to.

After my colleagues and I asked our questions and got answers, it became clear that finding terrorists is not the only purpose of this bill. At the same time, they are going to try to do what they cannot do now.

And that means those who use air transportation will be more closely monitored than travellers using any other means of transportation in Canada. Of course, this is the result of September 11, because that was a horrible event we never want to see happen again. Unfortunately, people travelling by air will pay the penalty and a databank on frequent flyers will be created.

That is what will happen. Information on frequent travellers will be kept in the data banks monitored by the RCMP and CSIS. That is why the Bloc Quebecois supports the recommendations of the privacy commissioner, who wanted to add the following to paragraph 4.82 (14). I will not read 4.82 in its entirety; the part that the privacy commissioner wanted to add is clear enough on its own. He wanted to add this:

—and a copy of this record must be provided within seven days to the PrivacyCommissioner of Canada unless the Privacy Commissioner waives this requirement inwriting to the Commissioner and/or the Director.

Given the nature of the information that will be kept by the RCMP and CSIS, for whatever reason, the privacy commissioner was saying that since there was injury to rights--and this is an historical precedent--there must be some guidelines. Businesses are not allowed give out private information on their clients. According to the legislation, the RCMP and CSIS can keep the information for seven days. After that, they may keep it longer if it is required for security purposes. The privacy commissioner simply said that if information is going to be kept longer than seven days, he would like a copy of the files to ensure that it was being kept for reasons of protection and security, to fight terrorism for example, so that he could determine that it was not being used for purposes not consistent with the legislation?

Believe or not, CSIS is against that, as are the RCMP and Transport Canada. The Bloc Quebecois amendment requesting that this be added to the act, as requested by the rivacy commissioner, was rejected.

A member of the Liberal caucus who was on the committee said that the members of her party had some very hard-hitting questions for RCMP and CSIS witnesses. In spite of their answers, I know very well that this legislation was drawn up by the RCMP and CSIS for their own ends and that the transport department did not have a say.

Of course, police organizations dream of turning Canada and Quebec into police states. This is terrible. It would be to lose the fight against terrorism when the very thing that terrorists want to do is undermine our rights as a free and democratic society. That is what the terrorists were trying to do.

Today, we are letting them win by allowing our police organizations, such as the RCMP and CSIS, to collect information on frequent passengers from independent data bases. It will be possible to use this information without the privacy commissioner being able to check the data.

Moreover, there is a clause that says that this information will not be subject to the provisions of the Access to Information Act. Certain provisions in this act say that, for security reasons, the information commissioner is not required to respond to certain requests. However, despite these provisions, the bill before us and air passenger information are totally exempt from the Access to Information Act. In other words, we will never be able to know the contents of a file kept by the RCMP or CSIS. It is even worse.

On this issue, I will let the information commissioner and those who will ask questions make up their own mind. However, the commissioner's report was very clear. To him, it was the worst decision, the worst bill or the worst recommendation ever brought forward in Parliament.

Again, I must point out that the information commissioner and the privacy commissioner are independent persons appointed by the government to defend the interests of Quebeckers and Canadians.

When the Canadian Bar Association and the Barreau du Québec support the privacy commissioner request for access to information, it means that all of civil society is critical of this bill. Again, I am sorry that Liberal members did not understand civil society's message.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, unlike some previous speakers, it is with a lot a frustration that I rise on Bill C-17.

This is the third time that the government has introduced a public safety bill. We first had Bill C-42, which contained a whole series of safety measures that were clearly excessive in terms of rights and freedoms. Then, marginal corrections were made with Bill C-55. And now, the government has introduced Bill C-17, which is essentially identical to Bill C-42 and Bill C-55.

Clearly, the government did not learn from its mistakes. As with Bill C-35—which was passed—as with the airport security tax, the government has adopted or is proposing a whole series of measures, in the aftermath of the tragic events of September 11, 2001, which ultimately do not seem to be of any use in the fight against terrorism. I remind the House that Bill C-35, which was passed despite the Bloc Quebecois' opposition, contains all kinds of threats and injuries to rights and freedoms and has not been of any use whatsoever in the fight against terrorism in Canada since it was passed.

I would now like to talk about the air security charge; the government has been unable to demonstrate that this tax contributes in any way to paying for the equipment and technologies necessary to ensure airport security. While the airline industry, both in Canada and in the United States, is going through a catastrophic crisis, an additional tax does not help matters. There was so much government improvisation on this issue that, in the last budget in February, the Finance Minister had to reduce the tax significantly; yet, he kept it, which akes no sense whatsoever.

As I said, the government has been unable to demonstrate that this tax was needed.

On several occasions I have wanted to make this point in the House. Bill C-17 now gives me that opportunity. We have been led to believe, in Canada and in the United States, that a person taking a taxi, a bus or a train is considered as a customer, but the Canadian and U.S. governments consider airport or airline customers as potential criminals or terrorists. No wonder people are staying away from the airlines and airports: they are being treated as potential terrorists and criminals.

Bill C-17 is very much a part of all this. I think this act is of no use whatsoever in the fight against terrorism. Members will recall that this was the purpose. The government should have realized, since the tragic events of September 11, that it should have found another way to fight terrorism. As months passed by, one would have expected the government to understand that such measures dare of no use in the fight against terrorism, and it should have dropped the idea after Bill C-55 died on the Order Paper. Yet, the government introduced a new bill, Bill C-17, which, except for one element as I said, goes along the exact same lines as Bills C-42 and C-55.

This was raised by the hon. member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, and I think that it must be stressed. Bill C-17 dropped the excessive idea of controlled access military zones, or military security zones as they were called in Bill C-42. In large part, this is a Bloc Quebecois victory. We will recall that these zones could be of unlimited size, without any control being exercised, that the RCMP could declare them without providing any justification, without having to check with or be accountable to anyone, and that this could be done without the consent of the affected provinces.

Think, for example, of the Quebec City summit. The federal government could have unilaterally decided to declare a controlled access military zone for the whole of Quebec City, the national capital of Quebeckers. The purpose would have been to prevent the potential arrival of terrorists, and particularly to prevent citizens concerned with the current negotiations on the free trade zone of the Americas from coming to express their concern to the leaders and heads of state of the 34 countries that are parties to these negotiations.

As I said, this idea of this kind of controlled access military zone was dropped. Still, the new proposal to establish zones through orders is cause for concern to us. Nowhere does it say that the consent of the affected provinces will be required for these military security zones to be created.

The Bloc Quebecois would have liked for all of this to just disappear, but we will remain extremely vigilant, even though, as I said earlier, the fact that the initial idea of controlled access military zones was dropped must be regarded as a Bloc Quebecois victory.

There were two other elements that worried us and that still worry us: everything related to the interim orders as well as everything related to sharing information on airline passengers, who are now viewed by the Canadian government as potential terrorists, as I was saying earlier, regardless of whom they may be. These are concerns that also have to do with the protection of privacy.

I would like to say more about both of these matters, the interim orders and the exchange of information, particularly between the RCMP and CSIS. I know what I am talking about with regard to CSIS because when I was the president of the Conseil central de Montréal of the CSN, we realized that we had been infiltrated by CSIS. This occurred even though everyone knows that the CSN and all unions in Quebec are institutions that are not only recognized, but extremely democratic and transparent. So, I may have more apprehensions than others when it comes to giving special powers to the RCMP and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

With regard to interim orders, the new bill stipulates—or it will if, unfortunately, it is passed—that, “The Minister may make an interimorder that contains any provision that may becontained in a regulation made under this Actif the Minister believes that immediate actionis required to deal with a significant risk,direct or indirect, to health, safety or theenvironment”.

In subsection 4, we read the following, “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.

So, under the new section 30.1 and subsection 4, proposed interim orders will not be required to comply with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights. It is quite significant and worrisome that a minister could decide to issue an interim order without first having to ensure it complies with instruments that are supposed to protect the rights and freedoms of Canadians and Quebeckers.

These provisions are extremely dangerous. Unfortunately, I have just one minute left, and I have addressed only the matter of interim orders. We believe that these interim orders must be required to pass the test of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In conclusion, I want to say that the privacy commissioner is extremely concerned by the possibility that the RCMP and CSIS could exchange information on airline passengers, and we believe that the legislation should be much more restrictive than this.

For all these reasons, I am not only somewhat frustrated, but I will be voting against Bill C-17.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased today to speak to Bill C-17 on public safety. Hon. members will recall that this bill, while containing some changes, has basically already been C-42 and then C-55. Today we are looking at a new version which, as I will explain a little later, has been modified based on Bill C-42.

Initially, I took part in the debate on Bill C-55, particularly in connection with three fundamental aspects of that bill. I spoke about the matter of the controlled access military zone, which the bill stipulated established a security perimeter.

The second aspect I addressed during the debate on C-55 concerned the matter of interim orders, which are still there in Bill C-17, although some changes have been made. These include the time lapse between the making of the interim order and the time it is tabled. Despite the changes in deadlines, I will explain how the essence and the very bases of the verification process for the use of these orders are still flawed. We would have liked to have seen a verification on the use of these orders within a broader framework that would include the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and not just the enabling legislation.

The third aspect I addressed, which has to all intents and purposes undergone no change whatsoever in becoming Bill C-17, is the matter of the exchange of information. In Bill C-17 there is still a significant role played by the RCMP, no longer necessarily in gathering the information, but Bill C-17 still retains the possibility of being able to pass on certain information, to law enforcement officers among others.

We might have expected the government to respect not just what the Bloc Quebecois was calling for, but also the opinion voiced by the Privacy Commissioner.

Therefore, of course, as to the controlled access military zones, we have to admit that the Bloc Quebecois won the battle. Indeed, members will recall that, at the time, we opposed such a zone that would create a perimeter. However, last October 31, the government took this change into account after repeated demands by the Bloc Quebecois, and this provision was deleted from Bill C-17. We essentially wanted to maintain the necessary balance between security and freedom. The controlled access military zone did create a fundamental imbalance, which was not consisten with a democratic society.

There was also another aspect to this issue because the government could certainly have abused its power, the minister having a clearly established discretionary power. We felt that by granting such power to the minister, the government had gone too far.

Finally, with this security perimeter that would have been established—I say “would”, because it is not provided for in Bill C-17— the government had, to all intents and purposes, stripped the population of rights they were entitled to expect to enjoy. Indeed, this controlled access zone denied people living within its boundaries and perimeter some basic democratic rights that Canada has always proudly advocated.

Luckily, we won the battle thanks to the efforts of the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel. We clearly stated on October 31 that we had won. However, I will remind the House that we will monitor this issue very closely, because this balance between security and freedom must be maintained.

Another important aspect is the issue of interim orders. Again, we saw that the bill contains provisions to this effect. Of course, in terms of tabling in Parliament, the period between the tabling of the order in Parliament and the moment it comes into force was reduced. We would obviously have liked it to be reduced to five days. The government decided instead to keep a 15 day period, as in Bill C-55. Remember that in Bill C-42, the order took effect immediately upon being tabled in Parliament. So, this is a bit of an improvement over Bill C-55. Of course it is better than C-42, but we would have like the order to come into force within five days of being tabled.

Not only is the time lapse a problem, but it is also important that there be a preliminary check for compliance with the enabling legislation and with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Bill C-42 contained nothing to this effect, and nor did Bill C-55. However, we would have liked to see this preliminary check included in Bill C-17. However, there is nothing of the sort. Several motions to that effect were moved, but unfortunately they were all rejected.

The third aspect of the bill I would like to talk about, after the controlled access military zone and after the interim order, is the issue of information exchange.

I know I do not have much time left, but it is important to recall that what the Bloc Quebecois was calling for was that the right to privacy be protected. Incidentally, on November 1, 2002, the Privacy Commissioner gave his interpretation of the bill, with respect to this issue of information sharing. On November 1, 2002, he said:

—my concern is that the RCMP would also be expressly empowered to use this information to seek out persons wanted on warrants for Criminal Code offences that have nothing to do with terrorism, transportation security or national security.

He also said:

The implications of this are extraordinarily far-reaching.

There are two aspects to this exchange of information. The first is that even if we are quite satisfied with the fact that the RCMP will no longer be responsible for the collection of data, we are still concerned about the powers the RCMP to pass on information to peace officers, among others.

We must not forget that in a democracy, the right to privacy is a fundamental right. In Canada, it is established that people are not required to identify themselves to the police except if they are arrested or doing something that requires a permit, such as driving a motor vehicle.

I will conclude by saying that, with regard to the three iaspects of Bill C-42, Bill C-55 and Bill C-17, which is before the House today, the Bloc won its case on the issue of controlled access military zones.

On the issue of interim orders, we would have preferred a shorter time lapse between the tabling of these interim orders in the House and their coming into force. We would have preferred that it be shortened from 15 to 5 days. Moreover, we would have preferred that a preliminary check be made under the enabling legislation, and also the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Finally, concerning the exchange of information, we would have preferred that the RCMP not have the power to pass on certin information on people.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I have listened with some fascination to the comments that have been made by the various members of opposition parties to Bill C-17, the public safety act, and to the amendments that the government has brought to that bill.

I would like to put a little bit of context to my comments before I address some the concerns that have been raised. First, how do Canadians feel about the government dealing with their rights for the sake of fighting crime and preventing terrorism?

Canadians understand that privacy is extremely important, that it is one of the fundamental tenets on which our democracy is built, but they also understand that public safety, individual safety is also a very important issue.

In April 2002 the Ipsos-Reid poll showed 66% of those Canadians surveyed felt that the police should be given more power to fight crime even if it might be seen as an infringement of some individual rights. Some 66% felt that terrorism threats outweighed the protection of privacy rights. As of September 9, 2002, the Ipsos-Reid poll indicated that 59% of Canadians felt that the federal government had not done enough to ensure that the police had the necessary tools to fight terrorism.

At times government has to lead public poll. I do not believe that the government has not done enough and I certainly do not believe that we should willy-nilly infringe on individual rights to privacy, and the government does not either.

Now let us address some of the issues that were raised by some members of the opposition. They said that there was a problem on disclosure to third parties when if the information that is retained from the airline passenger manifests, that the RCMP or CSIS could disclose to a third party and there would be no control over respecting privacy rights.

The member from the Bloc just talked about how they have consulted their communities and the public and that they have taken into account the consultation with their communities and their public.

Personally, I think that all federal MPs have an obligation to hold public consultations on this issue. I think that those members, on both sides of the House, who take an interest in this issue have held consultations. It is not the exclusive privilege or the exclusive responsibility or the exclusive duty of members of opposition parties to consult their community, their constituents and the general public regarding a bill or a motion, whether it comes from the government or from the opposition.

I can say that members on the government side have held consultations. Indeed, we have seen the results of these consultations in the questions that Liberal members sitting on the legislative committee that studied Bill C-17 asked of witnesses who made representations and presented briefs to this committee.

I would even say that the most relevant and the most difficult questions that were put to the RCMP, to CSIS and to officials from the departments of transport, immigration, revenue and the solicitor general came from government members.

I do not want to deny the fact that difficult questions also came from opposition members.

However, I believe that anyone reviewing the transcripts would see that Liberal members generally asked more difficult questions than did opposition members.

Questions were asked and statements were made by the privacy commissioner during the legislative committee hearings.

During those hearings the privacy commissioner raised some very important issues. He said that he had concerns, if subclause 4.8(2) were to remain as it is laid out, about the RCMP's ability to scan passenger information to search for persons wanted on warrants. He had very serious concerns about that.

What did the government do? The government took those concerns seriously and, therefore, the “identification of persons for whom a warrant has been issued” was removed as a primary purpose for collecting passenger information. What does that government amendment, which was approved and adopted in committee, actually mean? It means that the RCMP would now only be able to access passenger information for the purpose of transportation security.

That was a clear concern of the privacy commissioner. The privacy commissioner had no issue with the RCMP being able to access airline passenger manifests for the purpose of transportation security. His problem was with subclause 4.8(2) which, as it was originally written, the RCMP, as a primary purpose, would have been able to search for people for whom warrants had been issued.

Subclause 4.8(2) has now been amended and, hopefully, when the vote in the House at report stage happens, the House will adopt the amendment, which was approved and adopted in committee, that would limit the RCMP.

We took the privacy commissioner's concerns on that issue very seriously but we obviously needed to retain the aspect of transportation security in the regime because it is necessary for public safety. That is the raison d'être of the bill.

What was one of the other privacy commissioner's concerns? He had a concern that as Bill C-17 was initially written there were outmoded offences for which warrants had been issued, such as fraudulently altering brands on cattle or other offences that, we could almost guarantee, would not put public safety at risk nor public transportation safety at risk, such as municipal corruption.

The privacy commissioner made a big point about that and said that it was ridiculous. Many of the offences that were listed under this clause would have allowed the RCMP to detain a passenger if it found that the passenger was wanted for an outstanding warrant. We changed that definition and narrowed it substantially to apply to only serious offences. Those offences would be directly related to terrorist or transportation security threats, such as the use of explosives or participation in a terrorist group. I give that as an example.

The privacy commissioner raised his concerns at committee and the government took those concerns seriously. The last point I want to make is that the privacy commissioner stated clearly in committee that he had all the oversight mechanisms required for him to ensure that the application of this legislation, once it is adopted, will be respected by the RCMP and by CSIS.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-17 today.

As we can see and as listeners will be able to see at report stage, this bill is similar to previous bills, namely Bill C-55 and Bill C-42.

At second reading of this bill, the Bloc Quebecois voted against it. Despite the outstanding work my colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel did during of this bill, by pointing out and tackling serious problems, the government has refused to listen and to accept any amendment. Yet amendments could have been a step in the right direction, for the government, but as usual, it ignored the opposition.

I think the government is still doing what it has done since it was elected several years ago. Everything that comes from its side is perfect, while it does not want to listen to anything that opposition parties want to suggest to enhance, clarify and improve their bills in committee. The eight government members always adopt a common stand against the opposition members. Often, despite the fact that several government members do not even know what they will be voting on, they always agree with the government's amendments and are automatically against opposition parties' amendments, even though these amendments would improve the bills.

Let us not forget that, when this government introduces a bill, opposition members do their homework. We consult people and ask them what they think and what they would like to have improved in the bill. We connect with the reality in our communities. But we see that, while we are doing our homework, this government takes the bills that its bureaucrats provide it and endorses them unquestioningly.

This has happened once again with Bill C-17. Moreover, despite all the amendments and motions brought forward by the opposition, this bill goes against the privacy commissioner's proposals. There is a part of this bill that deals with everything that affects privacy.

During the study of the second version of this bill, Bill C-55, the privacy commissioner said that he had major objections. When that bill was withdrawn, we thought that, when it was reintroduced as Bill C-17, the government would take the privacy commissioner's objections into consideration. But the opposition is unable to change the government's position. Even the privacy commissioner, who was appointed to protect Canadians' privacy, is unable to do so.

I would like those listening to know how important it is that this government listen to the Privacy Commissioner. He believes that the provision in question, section 4.82 of both bills, would give the RCMP and CSIS unrestricted access to the personal information held by airlines about all Canadian air travellers on domestic as well as international flights, and this worries him enormously.

Why is he worried? He is worried that the RCMP would also be expressly empowered to use this information to seek out persons wanted on warrants for Criminal Code offences that have nothing to do with terrorism, transportation security or national security.

Although we in the Bloc Quebecois wish Quebec to become a sovereign nation, at present we are still part of Canada. In Canada, it is well established that we are not required to identify ourselves to police unless we are being arrested or we are carrying out a licensed activity such as driving. The right to anonymity with regard to the state is a crucial privacy right.

Since we are required to identify ourselves to airlines as a condition of air travel and since section 4.82 would give the RCMP unrestricted access to the passenger information obtained by airlines, this would set the extraordinarily privacy-invasive precedent—and invasive it is—of effectively requiring compulsory self-identification to the police.

Finally, there is a very serious problem with Bill C-17. We share the opinion of the privacy commissioner, who says that the proposed amendments are an insult to the intelligence of Canadians. It is serious when a privacy commissioner tells the government that, in Bill C-17, clause 4.82 is an insult to the intelligence of Canadians. The government has turned a deaf ear, and I am dumbfounded. The amendments proposed under this new bill present no new solutions to the fundamental issues regarding the principle.

The government is now proposing regulations limiting the Criminal Code offence warrants under which the RCMP will be conducting searches. However, it does nothing to address the fundamental principle that the police have no business using this extraordinary access to personal information to search for people wanted on warrants for any offences unrelated to terrorism.

The privacy commissioner is so discouraged that he is appealing to parliamentarians, because this is insulting to Parliament; he says that it is now up to Parliament to explain to these people that privacy is a fundamental human right of Canadians that must be respected, rather than treated with the apparent indifference that the government is showing.

I think that the privacy commissioner's statements reflect the values that the Bloc Quebecois is defending. We agree with his words and utter them in turn, because people's privacy is at stake.

That is why the Bloc Quebecois is asking that the government's proposed amendments on the powers of the RCMP and CSIS to collect information cease to exist, and that this bill be taken back to the drawing board to ensure that privacy is respected.

For now, Canada is not a totalitarian state. We enjoy freedom of expression in this country, where privacy is one of the most important things we have.

I join my hon. colleague for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel in telling the government that the Bloc Quebecois will be voting against this bill. Furthermore, I will go further than my colleague and ask the government to withdraw Bill C-17.

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to say a few words to Bill C-17. Like my colleague who just spoke, I also have concerns about whether we should push through a bill such as this after such a prolonged period of time.

When September 11 hit everybody with the awareness of how ill-prepared we were to deal with acts of terrorism, everyone, not only across the country but around the world, reacted immediately. Within days we were told massive legislation would be brought forth to address the problem so that nothing like that would ever happen again. We needed to be much more aware of what was going on in our own country and around the world. We also needed to become aware that this would have some effect on our own personal freedoms.

At that time most people said that they would have no problem with infringements on their freedom if it benefited the security and safety of their country. However quite a lot of time has elapsed since that occurrence and perhaps it is time to assess our response to such an act.

In situations like that quite often people overreact out of concern and when they are all hyped up and think they could be next. Now that we have had time for sobre second thought, perhaps it is time to go through the bill and ask ourselves how much of it is relevant now and how much of it is really necessary now. In retrospect, I think we would find many clauses in the bill which go above and beyond what is required now to deal with the issue of security.

Let me take a different tact because to talk about each clause in the bill, its effect, the transfer of power and the loss of personal freedoms would take possibly months. I would like to talk about security from a different aspect.

We will all remember that fateful day of September 11. I am sure there are two or three events in all our lives for which we remember what happened, where we were at the time and who we were with when it happened. In my own case I remember the day President Kennedy was shot, the day Henderson scored the great goal for Canada in 1972, and of course September 11. There may be other significant days with some personal impact, but general widespread events such as these are enshrined in our memory never to be forgotten.

However, on Septemeber 11, when we watched the second plane hit one of the towers in New York, we began to realize that something was drastically wrong. We also found out that a couple of other planes were involved and heaven's knows how many more were prevented from getting into the air because of the quick action that was taken.

Unfortunately, I was not in Newfoundland on that day because, like many members, my party was having a caucus meeting in western Canada. Having to wait for taxis and being on waiting lists, it took us a few days to get home, but we finally managed to get back home. However I was told that the people In Newfoundland who had not turned on the television or the radio that morning to hear about what had happened were amazed at the number of jets flying overhead.

When we get nice clear blue skies, as we always do in Newfoundland, the white streaks are quite visible, and on that day they were very visible. People were wondering what was happening. What was happening was that many of the trans-Atlantic flights were being diverted to airports in Newfoundland. Places like Gander, St. John's, Stephenville and Goose Bay were crowded, particularly Gander, with flights arriving from all over the place. Even though many of them had been closer to larger areas, such as Toronto and Montreal, they were diverted to Newfoundland for whatever reason. I guess we can argue with the fact.

However that event showed clearly the need to have specific landing sites, specific bases as such, in such areas in the country. During the war, in the late 1930s and early 1940s, Newfoundland was still an independent country. Perhaps a lot of people are saying today that we should have stayed that way. However during that time we had large, strong, efficient naval and air force bases in places such as Gander, Goose Bay, Stephenville and St. John's. They provided a place of security for all our allies, for Canadians, Americans and the British. We still have countries from all over the world doing some minimal training at some of our sites, particularly in Goose Bay.

However, the present government, once Canada joined us in 1949, allowed the stature of these bases to diminish and in fact closed most of them. The recent confrontation in Iraq illustrated to us quite clearly that we never know when confrontations can happen around the world. We strategically should have secure areas, our own bases, well-equipped to respond to any kind of a situation, whether it be our involvement in some confrontation or whether it be fallout from the involvement or fallout from something completely disassociated with our own country, such as the events that happened in New York. We were there to help out, luckily, because we had some of the infrastructure that was necessary.

We have a government that over the last 15 to 20 years has allowed infrastructure in the country to fall completely apart. I am sure that what is true in Newfoundland is true in other parts of the country. If we are going to talk about security let us make sure we play our part in making sure the country is secure.

It is nice to bring in a bill half an inch thick and talk about taking away personal freedoms and the hypothetical ideas of what might happen down the road, but in reality let us start putting some concrete plans in place to strengthen our country and to make sure we are strategically positioned to handle ourselves, whether it be in peacekeeping times or in times of confrontation.

We have the infrastructure throughout the country. Newfoundland and Labrador is strategically located, with the basic infrastructure already there, but we need to revive and strengthen the infrastructure, not only for the good of the province involved but for the good of the country.

The bill, undoubtedly, after being on the table for practically a year and a half now, needs to be revised. In light of that perhaps we could do something worthwhile for the country.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to speak at report stage of Bill C-17, the public safety act. I listened with interest to the government representative, the Secretary of State for Selected Crown Corporations. I would like to congratulate him on his new appointment and I look forward to debating him and pushing him a little on the question of the need for affordable housing in this country.

In listening to his comments on Bill C-17, he was maybe a little defensive but he was also very aggressive in his defence of the government's position on this bill. He took us back to those tragic events on September 11 and put forward a picture that this bill was essential and necessary because of the horrific events that took place. In fact he asked the opposition members in the House why they would blame the government for everything, even the weather.

Let us be clear. Maybe the government would like to take blame for the weather but in this instance we are holding the government to account on this legislation because there are very significant concerns about the impacts and the long term consequences of the so-called public safety act.

I would like to begin my remarks by quoting from one of the organizations that presented at the committee, the Coalition of Muslim Organizations. In their presentation, just to give this some context, they said:

The Anti-terrorism Act was introduced and enacted in the dark shadow of the tragic events of September 11, 2001. In many ways, the looming, ubiquitous spectre of terror and fear gave rise to legislation that struck the wrong balance between security and civil rights. The predecessors to the Act, Bills C-42 and C-55, were also conceived in that environment of heated reaction. However, the distance of time allows us to reflect on the important issues of public safety and civil rights from a more sober vantage point.

While I was not on the committee that went through this bill in detail, I know my colleague, the member for Churchill, very much focused on these comments and the need to have some sort of reflection and avoid the impetus to rush into yet another piece of security legislation that would have incredible long term impacts and consequences for Canadians and for our society in the values we hold of democracy, civil liberties and the right to privacy.

In looking at the bill, the NDP has been firmly opposed to it because we are very concerned that the very broad powers contained within the bill to collect information on passengers who travel by air, internationally and domestically, information to be amassed and controlled by CSIS and the RCMP, is very serious. I would bet that most Canadians have no idea that this kind of procedure and data gathering is about to take place.

The brief from the Coalition of Muslim Organizations clearly raises the importance to have a reflection about where we are in balancing the need for security, about which everybody is concerned. We are all concerned about the security of our country, the security of our individual families and communities, but clearly that has to be balanced with the rights we have to privacy and our rights to civil liberties.

I read through some of the transcripts of the committee and noted the comments of Mr. Radwanski, the privacy commissioner of Canada. I have always appreciated his reflection on a number of the bills that have come before the House. In connection to this bill, commenting on the provisions that would allow this collection of information about individual passengers to be stored, collected and used, he said:

--in Canada we are not required to identify ourselves to the police as we go about our normal, law-abiding business. Unless we are being either arrested or carrying out a licensed activity such as driving, we are not even required to carry ID, let alone identify ourselves to the police.

He went on to say:

Even on a domestic flight of course you're required to provide your name and show photo ID.

When that information is made available to the police, as it will be under Bill C-17 to the RCMP under proposed section 4.82, the effect is exactly the same as if we were required to notify the police every time we travelled so it could check whether we were wanted for any number of Criminal Code offences or an outstanding warrant.

I find these very sober thoughts coming from the privacy commissioner of Canada. With the passage of the bill, we will be setting up a whole series of steps, a whole apparatus that will allow the collection of information. When used in concert with other bills, which regrettably have been approved by the House, they will transfer enormous powers to policing authorities, such as the RCMP, CSIS and the intelligence service. This information collected about Canadians can be used in any variety of ways.

One concern we have about the bill specifically is that the information collected by the RCMP and CSIS can be moved down the line and provided to local authorities. It could be used to make decisions about outstanding warrants. This is precisely the point the privacy commissioner is getting at.

We all agree that laws should be enforced. However in Canada I hope we still have the right to go about our business without having to self-identify, to check in and to produce mandatory ID that can then be used to determine various situations. If passed, Bill C-17 will fundamentally change that. It will have created an environment, along with the other bills which have been passed, to allow that kind of information to now be gathered and used against people.

I know from the organizations I have spoken to, particularly in my riding of Vancouver East where we do have a very diverse multicultural community, there are many people who are very fearful about how the bill will impact on their ability to freely travel, even though they have no connection with any terrorism or with anything that could be suspected in terms of a security risk.

In fact one of the amendments that was sought in committee, which was unfortunately rejected, was the need to have independent oversight, likely the privacy commissioner, to ensure that there were annual reports from the minister responsible, from the RCMP, from CSIS, which would have to go to the privacy commissioner. We want somebody to look at what is going on in terms of the data being collected and the files that are being established based on information drawn from passenger lists.

Suppose we end up with a situation where we knew that 2% of the passengers flying in Canada, or maybe 1%, were Canadian Arabs or from a Moslem background. If we had information which showed us that 20% of the files were being kept based on this legislation, would that be cause for concern?

I know I and my colleagues have brought forward examples in question period about how racial profiling and how targeting is beginning to take place at border crossings and airports. I have even debated the question of a national identity card and how that too is now part of this very fundamentally changed environment, where having a national identity card can actually be used in a very negative way to pull people over and to target people because of how they look or because of their racial background.

I want to say most strongly that we in the NDP have been following the bill, as have other opposition parties and members. While we recognize the need for public security, the words of wisdom from the Coalition of Muslim Organizations calling upon us to have reflection post-September 11 are things we need to heed.

I urge members to reject the amendment that is before us, to reject the bill and to send it back because this bill on public safety will undermine the democratic civil liberties and values that we hold so dear.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again we are debating Bill C-17, the half-brother of the short-lived twins, Bill C-42 and Bill C-55.

Since September 11, 2001, many say that nothing is the same, that the world is changing, as evidenced by the recent events in Iraq. Obviously, although the world often changes for the better, we must recognize that, in this case, it is changing for the worse.

Everybody agrees that logic is essential to the drafting of any bill, and the government must listen to that logic. However, it seems that the government is hard of hearing, and I am very sorry about that.

We are certainly happy that controlled access military zones have been removed from the bill before us, but does this mean that we should stop being vigilant? Absolutely not. We must see that the decisions being made today respect the balance between the three branches in our society, namely the executive, legislative and judiciary branches. In its current form, Bill C-17 poses a threat to the balance between the executive and the legislative branches, since it includes specific provisions allowing ministers and officials to make interim orders.

Interim orders are exempt from the application of section 3 of the Statutory Instruments Act. An order is considered to be a statutory instrument; therefore, it should undergo a preliminary check by the Clerk of the Privy Council. His role is precisely to ensure that the proposed regulation does not, and I quote:

—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.

So we should ask ourselves the following question: if the purpose is not to trespass unduly on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, why are we exempting the interim orders from the proper examination that would prove they are in compliance with the charter? By chance, would the government have the secret intention of transgressing the most basic rules of our free and democratic society by infringing on the fundamental rights of those individuals who form that society?

We do not question the importance of preventing all possible terrorist acts, and we do not question the necessity of equipping ourselves with all the tools we need to expose those who would threaten the security of citizens.

But there is one inescapable fact and that is that in order to fight against terrorism, we must fight against its main cause, and that is the extreme poverty of hundreds of millions of people.

If we all agree that it is important to eliminate the conditions that breed terrorism, we also agree that we must fight against those who would come to our borders with the intent of committing terrorist acts. Once again, however, this cannot be done at any cost.

One price we must refuse to pay is waiving the right to privacy. In the past, we made choices. We made the choice to live in a constitutional state instead of a police state. We must be careful not to open the door to this style of governance where police are everywhere, always checking what everyone is doing.

Would any of us blindly agree to have personal information relating to us processed and used for purposes other than those related to the fight against terrorism? Should the simple fact of taking a plane warrant the RCMP and CSIS having a record on a person? No. That has been made abundantly clear in the debates on Bill C-55.

It is interesting to know what the Privacy Commissioner thinks of Bill C-17. First, it would appear that his concerns about the defunct Bill C-55 were and are still being completely ignored. The ministers and top government officials have failed, so far, to provide him with an appropriate response. I believe he is still waiting. This is why he is now calling on Parliament to ensure his concerns finally receive the attention they deserve.

I shall quote his words:

But my concern is that the RCMP would also be expressly empowered to use this information to seek out persons wanted on warrants for Criminal Code offences that have nothing to do with terrorism, transportation security or national security.

What we must guard against is the risk of creating a precedent that would eventually open the door to increased police control over various areas of our daily lives. For example, if we allowed special powers intended primarily to protect national security and to counter terrorism to be made available to the RCMP with respect to air passengers, who is to say that this special situation will not be extended to rail, bus or metro passengers?

If, for example, a suicide bomber were to blow himself up on a crowded train, would we go so far as to flag train travellers and use this same opportunity to look for people with outstanding warrants? There is always a tendency to be overzealous. There is always a point of no return when it comes to overzealousness, a point beyond which we must not go for fear of destroying the fragile balance required to maintain a free and democratic society.

The commissioner also raises another point that we must not lose sight of. The right to anonymity with regard to the state is a crucial privacy right. With Bill C-17, that right to anonymity will be set aside the moment we are unwise enough to set foot aboard a plane. If it were set out in the act that personal information can be used only in the case of persons representing a true threat to national security, we could feel a bit reassured, but that is not the case. Obviously, the right to privacy will be meaningless as soon as Bill C-17 comes into force, if the government maintains its position. We have confidence, Mr. Speaker, that you will not have to reserve passage on a ship in order to visit your girlfriend overseas. It is likely that your name would end up on a file somewhere.

The members of the Bloc Quebecois are here to serve the interests of the public, and so they will fight energetically to see that the right to privacy is respected. We share the Privacy Commissioner's view that there are some major changes needed in Bill C-17. What we have before us today could not be called major changes.

Privacy is one of our basic rights. We are entitled to expect information on us to be used sparingly, at the very least. For the government to confer upon itself the right to collect information on air travellers is one thing, but the right to exchange and distribute that information is quite another.

In fact, Bill C-17 gives the minister the right to disclose the information to the whole world. Not only that, but it allows the minister to disclose and release the information but does not provide a detailed framework for such activities. That is what I call increasing ministerial authority without proper monitoring.

As we have said before, maintaining a balance is crucial to a healthy society and the risks of a faux pas are too high.

With the new powers that the bill would give the minister, he could be authorized to disclose to U.S. authorities information on applications for refugee status made in Canada. Do we have the right to authorize the release of personal information like this? One thing is clear, as soon as information is shared with another party, we lose control of it.

It is naive, idealistic and even rash to believe that we could control a situation when we have not established sufficient limits.

In conclusion, the government cannot always defend the indefensible. The same goes for the protection of privacy.

Let me quote a short sentence from Khalil Gibran, and I dedicate it particularly to my colleagues in the government. This is my gift for today. He said, and I quote:

Strange that we all defend our wrongs with more vigor than we do our rights.

This sentence is food for thought. I hope that it will lead to conclusions that are worthy of the Canadian society, which is, as everyone knows, the best in the world.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Secretary of State (Selected Crown Corporations)]

Mr. Speaker, before I was given the opportunity to work on my current responsibilities for crown corporations, I was parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport and assigned the task of trying to shepherd this bill through committee. I have been away from it for a little while, but I am pleased to have an opportunity to comment on some of the issues that people are concerned about.

Members opposite, particularly the Canadian Alliance, tend to want to hold up the United States as the way to do things. The previous speaker said that President Bush did this and he did that following September 11. One of the things that is interesting about the U.S. system is that when a crisis occurs, the American people, the congress, the senate, and everybody in Washington tends to get behind the president regardless of his political stripe. They tend to rally around the flag.

One of the differences in our situation, for better or for worse, is that no such thing ever happens. In fact, I find that the opposition use every opportunity it can to somehow blame the government for everything from the weather to whatever we can imagine. It is an interesting approach. We give the member what he wants.

He said at the beginning of his remarks that he was pleased that the government had eliminated certain issues. Some witnesses who appeared before the committee, and I was there for many meetings until this recent appointment, expressed their strong concerns about the effect of the inclusion of inexplosive ammunition components in part 7 of the bill. This is an issue that this member, in his zest to fight anything to do with ammunition or gun control, was very adamant about.

It was not the government's intention to burden lawful shooting activities within part 7, and the witnesses from Natural Resources Canada indicated that in their testimony before the committee. The government listened closely to the concerns that were expressed by the stakeholders and decided to introduce motions to remove all references to inexplosive ammunition components from Bill C-17.

It is like people here cannot take yes for an answer. We listened, we heard, and we removed the references. While the member did say at the beginning of his remarks that he appreciated it, he then went on with other areas that I would suggest are not related to this.

How did the government react? Let me tell members that the current Minister of Transport, who was the minister on September 11, reacted by immediately closing down the skies. There were 5,000 aircraft flying around the skies over North America. Members should remember what happened in Gander. We should give credit to the people of Gander, and rightly so, for opening their hearts and their homes, their churches and their community halls to help these stranded people. However, do we think that all those planes were diverted to Gander miraculously and landed without incident?

We all saw the pictures in the news of the planes on the tarmac, lined up one after another. When they finally had to leave, just the management of the air traffic control aspect of that was incredible. Is there any thought how some 5,000 aircraft, which were diverted and many of which landed in various airports in Canada, including Gander, were managed? Did the pilots just talk it over among themselves and say, “let us go to Gander, I think it is safe there”?

Let us be fair and give credit where credit is due. The government gave the direction. It is not up to the government to actually physically do it. We have professionals in place in NAV Canada and Transport Canada. But it is up to the government, in this case the Minister of Transport, to set the tone, to give the direction, and to give the order.

I recall that this minister was on a cell phone in a car, driving from Montreal back to Ottawa, when this crisis occurred. Within minutes he took action that I would say could have saved lives; we will never know. But the fact that it was handled so professionally and so smoothly, members should at least be fair and say that it was an issue that happened on the watch of the government.

We do not need to stand and crow that we did it all because that is not true. We relied on the professionals in our employ and on the people of Canada to respond in such a positive way. But what do we hear? We hear members in the House saying we need to change the government because it did not act quickly enough. It is just such nonsense.

There may be reasons that members opposite think we need to change the government. There may be reasons why Canadians think we need to change the government. Who knows? They might change the government. That is why we have such a great democratic country because that option is there. However that is the wrong issue. We should be getting behind the government on this critical bill.

There was much debate in committee about whether or not we were going too far. Concerns were expressed by the Privacy Commissioner. The bar associations that were before us were saying that if we found information on a person travelling from Vancouver to Toronto and the indication was that person was a terrorist, their position was that we should not be able to go further in terms of reviewing the passenger list. However, if we did that and discovered that there was someone else onboard that aircraft who had an outstanding warrant for a crime that had been specified in this bill, a crime that would result in a sentence in excess of five years--and in this country that is a crime such as murder, kidnapping and that kind of thing, the most serious of crimes that one can imagine--we would not have the right to arrest that person when he or she got off the aircraft according to the bar associations.

I remember asking the lawyers who were there representing the bar associations to help me understand this. They were suggesting that I tell my constituents that even though, as a result of our work against terrorism and as a result of our work in following up on information provided by CSIS and the RCMP, we discovered a third party on an aircraft with an outstanding warrant for having murdered someone that we had to let them walk off the plane. Their answer was, yes, that is what they were saying, in the aid of privacy rights.

I believe the official opposition was onside with our position in that particular area. But we have members standing in the House objecting to criminals being given the right to vote and all of these issues. Yet, we are supposed to allow people to walk free when we have an outstanding warrant for their arrest for murder or for kidnapping or for some other vile crime. It just makes no sense at all.

This bill has taken time. Let us review the process. The government responded very quickly after we took the initial action on this bill. The initial action was to provide safe haven for tens of thousands of people. We did that, we did it well, and our officials acted responsibly. Our next step was to bring in a bill that would deal with some of the concerns around Bill C-17. Bill C-42 was introduced and there was a big furor over the bill. A lot of concern was expressed about that bill.