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

Citizenship of Canada Act

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

Mr. Speaker, it is reassuring to see so many members in the House, among them the minister and the Chair of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

This is the second time this week that I have had the opportunity to take part in a debate on a government bill. You will tell me that that is what we are here for and it is a great pleasure for me to do so.

Last Tuesday when I spoke on Bill C-17, I had many concerns with regard to the respect of human rights and freedoms. Today, my remarks will be of a special nature since the debate deals specifically with one of my favourite issues, because citizenship is no small thing. I am our party's critic on everything related to citizenship and immigration.

So I was somewhat eager to see the bill to repeal the old 1977 act back before the House. The return of that bill was more than expected. The current Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is the third one facing the challenge of reforming the Citizenship Act currently in force. The question is: will he manage to carry it through to completion?

However, another question comes to mind when one takes a careful look at this new Bill C-18. In its current form, should this bill be passed? The table is set for a very relevant debate.

Before getting into the ins and outs of Bill C-18, we must understand its underpinnings. Why has the minister taken the initiative to put this bill back on the order paper? Hon. members are as aware as I that a lot of water has gone under the bridge since 1977. Today's reality is totally different. Since September 11, 2001,moreover, this has been pointed out on numerous occasions in this House, and rightly so.

The phenomenon of globalization favours migration. Increasingly, countries are having to develop more clearly defined immigration policies to deal with the new challenges this brings.

If migration is on the rise, then obviously permanent residence and citizenship applications will also increase. Canada, like Quebec, is a host country for immigration, as we know. Canada receives about one-quarter of a million immigrants yearly. These will all be entitled eventually to apply for Canadian citizenship, at which point the measures set out in Bill C-18 will apply.

As well, even before that, there is the permanent residence application process. This entire process involves the same desire, to live together in one place, sharing the values of justice and fairness for all.

Given the changes the world is undergoing, it is normal, essential in fact, for legislation to adapt to the changing times. If the principle of Bill C-18 is indeed to bring the existing legislation up to speed so that it better reflects our values and aspirations, I am all for it. Let us make no mistake about it, however. Being in favour of the principle of a bill does not in any way mean supporting every provision it contains. The current context of the fight against terrorism seems to be becoming the justification for every imaginable action. We fully agree that it is absolutely vital to avoid the death of innocent civilians in terrorist attacks, but we absolutely do not agree with this justifying shameless attacks on fundamental rights and freedoms. Enslavement can never be justified in the name of freedom.

Now for Bills C-63, C-16 and C-18, the current fashion here on the Hill is, without a doubt, to hold debates two, sometimes even three, times on similar bills with different numbers.

Today we are debating Bill C-18, which used to be known in another life as Bill C-16, which in turn had started out a few years earlier as Bill C-63. All this may seem confusing and repetitive in the end. However, if we look closely at the bill, we see that there are differences in certain details, but very important differences.

Unfortunately, the differences between Bill C-16 and new Bill C-18 are not always for the better. Indeed, clauses 16 and 17, which I will come back to later, seem to result from an ill-defined reaction to the post-September 11 context.

It is certainly not by limiting the scope of the rule of law that we will improve matters in the world.

To come back to the old bill, Bill C-16, clause 10 stated, and I quote:

The Minister may, for the purposes of this Act, deem a person who is in Canada and who has resided in Canada for at least 10 years to be or to have become a permanent resident as of the day the Minister specifies.

The purpose of this clause was to allow people who have been in Canada for at least 10 years and who wrongly believed they were Canadian citizens, to become Canadian citizens, after having obtained permanent resident status, during the period set out in the legislation.

Take the case, for example, of parents who immigrate to Canada with one or two children, aged two or three, say, and become Canadian citizens. It is easy to understand that the children believe, quite honestly, that they too are Canadian citizens. This is not the case. In fact, if this person—once he or she reaches the age of 18, 20, 22, or even 16—commits a minor offence as an adolescent, he or she could be deported to his or her country of origin, even if he or she has no meaningful social ties to that country.

Will a child who lived one or two years in Haiti with his parents, and who then lived in Canada for 14 years, feel like a Haitian or a Haitian Canadian? That is the question that needs to be answered. Things would be easier if clause 10 from the former Bill C-16 were reintroduced in Bill C-18.

If hon. members think that this example is just a figment of my imagination, something that cannot happen in real life, they are mistaken. This is a real life example. On June 25, 2002, during its general assembly, the Bloc Quebecois adopted a proposal dealing expressly with this issue. The deportation of young Haitians who had criminal records because they made foolish mistakes, as many people do when they are young, was the result of a serious misapprehension on their part. They believed they were Canadian citizens, with the same rights, privileges and duties as any other full fledged citizen. How could it be otherwise, since they grew up in Quebec?

This is not a cosmetic improvement but, rather, an addition that can make a huge difference in a person's life. What happened between Bill C-16 and Bill C-18 to make this provision disappear? If the rehabilitation of young offenders is a principle in which we firmly believe, should it not apply to these young people who grew up in Quebec, in the case of these young Haitians, and elsewhere in Canada?

In fact, to fully realize what may have happened throughout the legislative process that was primarily intended to modernize the old Citizenship Act, it is interesting to take a look at the features of Bill C-18.

First, it goes without saying that people who are born in Canada will always, without exception, be Canadian citizens. It is difficult to provide otherwise. However, those who are granted Canadian citizenship, that is, people who were born abroad to Canadian parents, will only be able to transmit this citizenship to the first and second generations. In fact, in order to retain their right to Canadian citizenship, those in the second generation will have to apply before attaining 28 years of age and have resided in Canada for at least 1,095 days, that is three years prior to the date of the application.

The idea is to avoid having people who have no connection with Canada and who have never come here avail themselves of Canadian citizenship. While this is a new provision in Bill C-18, compared to the current act, this provision was also included in Bill C-16. So, this change is not totally new.

Even though the concept of globalization is spreading at the speed of light, if you get to the U.S. border and state “I am a citizen of the world”, you will soon find out that this expression is more poetical than practical. Let us say that these days it has become increasingly less fashionable to be stateless.

This is why Bill C-18 provides for an exception for third generations, should such a situation arise.

Mr. Speaker, I have a trick question for you. To make sure you are still listening to me, since it is cold outside, is there another category of persons that may acquire Canadian citizenship? Think carefully, Mr. Speaker; I am sure I will not have to tell you. You are right: adopted children can become Canadian citizens. This is where the issue starts to get a little tricky.

To start with, let us look at the current process for granting citizenship in the case of international adoption. To become a Canadian citizen, a child must first go through the immigration process, namely apply for landed immigrant status and then citizen status. Admittedly it may be very frustrating for parents who adopt a child to have to wait several years before the child can become a full-fledged citizen. That is a situation adoptive families would like to see rectified and we fully understand them. Nevertheless, I would like the government to proceed cautiously with any legislation on this issue.

Although we recognize the logic in granting citizenship, I would say virtually automatically, to adopted children, we must be careful not to create two different classes of citizens.

As members know, in Quebec we have the Civil Code. The Civil Code creates obligations for our law makers. Adoptions must be recognized by a Quebec court since this is an area of provincial jurisdiction. If the federal government goes ahead with the proposed changes without consulting the Quebec government beforehand to harmonize legislation, that might have a negative impact. I happen to know the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration quite well, and I know for a fact that he hates negative impacts. I can see the committee chair nodding.

With Bill C-18, the new measures would not apply to a child adopted by a Quebec family. He would then have to be sponsored and to go through the whole immigration process to finally be able to receive the same status as a child adopted in another province.

This would imply extra sponsorship costs for Quebec parents, which do not seem quite fair to us. As a matter of fact, in a letter dated November 6, 1998 and referring to Bill C-63, the grandfather of Bill C-18, ministers Rochon and Boisclair said, and I quote:

This bill raises various problems in Quebec, particularly with respect to the connection with and the specifics of our Civil Code, to the health care issue and to the additional costs that might be incurred as a result.

We can already identify two major factors. On the one hand, the provincial government does not oppose the principle of the proposed amendments as such, but rather the way in which they might be implemented. On the other hand, negotiations between both levels of government are essential to prevent any inequity. And I have no doubt whatsoever that the minister will want to correct potential inequities.

You understand that I will take this opportunity to remind this House that Quebec is a leader in international adoption. This is yet another compelling reason for the federal government not to proceed unilaterally on this issue, as is, we must admit, too often the case, unfortunately.

What about residency requirements? As members know, people can resort to subterfuge, which can sometimes be quite effective, not to mention the types of subterfuge we are unaware of. With your long parliamentary experience, I am sure that if you do the calculations, you will come up with figures much lower than the true figures. Let us face it, when it comes to subterfuge, the federal government is very cunning. Therefore, this was not much of a challenge for it. However, over time, we have smartened up.

This leads me to talk about the requirements regarding residency and physical presence in Canada. I imagine that you see what I am driving at with my references to subterfuge and presence in Canada. As you must certainly know, there are clever people who know different ways to make us believe that they were in Canada, while they actually were not. As a matter of fact, someone who applies for Canadian citizenship must be able, under the current legislation, to prove that he has resided in Canada during the three years preceding the date of his application. It is the law.

How can this be proven? Suppose I love playing golf. I am not very good at it, but I am smart. If I have bought an expensive membership in a Gatineau golf club, let us say that this is one point for me. If I have a valid Ontario driver's licence, which is also valid in Quebec, I get another point. If I also have have big fat accounts in two or three Canadian banks, this has to prove that I reside in Canada. Otherwise, why would I have all that? Is it possible? It is quite possible. And why is it possible?

Simply because, one year after the 1977 legislation took effect, a Federal Court judge ruled that in order to meet residency requirements, it was not necessary to prove physical presence in Canada. That is the reason.

People only have to establish that they have maintained close ties with Canada during the three previous years. There are also extreme cases, where people had resided in Canada only a few days a year, just long enough for a weekend of skiing, perhaps. Any sensible person would admit that this truly is an aberration.

The stated purpose of Bill C-18 is to remedy that situation. What clarification does it provide? If passed, it will specify that 1,095 days of actual presence will be required, that is, three full years out of a total period of six years. Now, theoretically at least, there will be no more doubt, the frauds will be quickly detected.

At the risk of being labelled a spoilsport—something everyone will agree applies to me only rarely—I would point out that the truth must be revealed. In practice, how will this be verified? Until now, unless the government has been doing things behind our backs, there has been no way to verify this. There is no registry of who has entered or left this great big country. Of course, the new definition of residency will help reduce the number of frauds, but by how much?

There is one worrisome thought that comes to mind. What if the government, in its zeal to limit public freedom, decided to carefully examine airline records under these new powers it plans to acquire through its public safety bill we debated earlier this week? Who can state with any certainty that this avenue will not be explored?

Speaking of lack of certainty, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask you one question. Is it true that one of the principles of a free and democratic society is the right to a fair trial? I ask this because a reading of the famous clauses 16 and 17 of this bill makes this exceedingly uncertain.

What astounds me in particular is that Bill C-18 specifically states as follows, quoting clause 3(g), that the purpose of this act is:

--to promote respect for the principles and values underlying a free and democratic society.

Moreover, the government appears to believe in this to such as extent that it specifies, in clause 21(1):

If the Minister is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person has demonstrated a flagrant and serious disregard for the principles and values underlying a free and democratic society, the Minister may submit a report to the Governor in Council recommending that the person not be granted citizenship or allowed to take the oath of citizenship

What is meant by “reasonable grounds to believe”? What I might find reasonable, another might not, or vice versa. The minister might find reasonable what I do not. Do “reasonable grounds to believe” mean proof, suspicion, or something else we know nothing about?

I have another question. What will a flagrant and serious disregard mean to the current minister and to his successors? When a piece of legislation is reviewed every 20 to 25 years, it is obvious that there will be other ministers. How is the seriousness of this disregard measured? Does the wording not sound a bit arbitrary? To add insult to injury, once a decision is made by the governor in council, it is final and it cannot be appealed or judicially reviewed. Is that the kind of democracy we want?

Mr. Speaker, you are probably as appalled as I am by the attitude of the government, but you have heard nothing yet. My brief analysis of the provisions so far was only a preamble.

Let us get down to business and go over clauses 16 and 17 of Bill C-18. I am giving the reference because the people who are watching need to be able to look them up for themselves and see what the government is about to do to our basic human rights.

Why not use an example? You are getting to know me. You know that I like things to be crystal clear. I will use an example to show what would happen under the bill as it stands now.

Let us say we have a Canadian citizen named Ahmed Samir. He came to Canada seven years ago and got his citizenship four years ago. He is a Muslim, a quiet man who comes from a good family. He works for a computer company and plays chess in his spare time. I hope you are starting to get a good idea of who he is.

But he still has friends in his country of origin, Syria. He goes back on occasion. After all, it is not unusual for someone who is proficient in IT to make more than MPs. Let us say that officials with CSIS start to have doubts about him. They track his air travel, and thanks to a certain bill that was passed in this House, they suspect him of being a potential terrorist. After investigating, they believe they have uncovered his true identity and they inform the Solicitor General of the case, who discusses it with his colleague, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and they nab him.The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration examines the facts and concludes that Samir obtained his citizenship by lying at the time his permanent resident status was granted, and that his citizenship should be revoked.

That is all it takes. The minister and the Solicitor General of Canada decide to file a certificate with the Federal Court to the effect that the individual in question obtained his citizenship by lying in order to be become a permanent resident, and then a Canadian citizen. In addition, the Solicitor General and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration ask that Ahmed Samir be declared inadmissible, since as far as they are concerned, he represents a threat to national security.

Once the case is before the court, the judge must ensure the confidentiality of the information on which the certificate is based and of any evidence the disclosure of which, in the judge's opinion, would be injurious to national security. The manner of the proceedings is also troublesome. The judge is authorized to proceed, and I quote paragraph 17 (4)( c ):

—as informally and expeditiously as the circumstances and considerations of fairness and natural justice permit;

What does “informally” mean? According to The Canadian Oxford Dictionary , informally means “without ceremony or formality”. Does proceeding informally mean showing no respect for rules and formalities? That is the real issue. It is fair to ask this question if the government, which is allowing judges to proceed on an issue as important as revoking a person's citizenship and deporting him or her without respecting formalities, believes that this is acceptable.

Following each request made by the minister or the Solicitor General at any time during the proceedings, the judge shall hear the information in the absence of the accused and his counsel. This is not anything like our judicial system. If, in the judge's opinion, the disclosure of this information could be injurious to national security, he cannot include it in the summary, which means that he cannot inform the accused or his counsel, but he may consider such information in making his determination.

I think hon. members will agree with me that it is hard to defend ourselves properly when we do not know and cannot know what evidence is used against us.

Moreover, clause 17(4)(j) clearly provides that the judge may, and I quote:

--receive into evidence anything that, in the opinion of the judge, is appropriate

—and I draw hon. members' attention to what follows—

--even if it is inadmissible in a court of law, and may base the decision on that evidence.

What is evidence that is “inadmissible” in a court of justice? What kind of evidence are we referring to, particularly since it is specified that the judge may base his decision on that evidence? All sense of proportion is being lost in the whole process, and this is extremely disturbing.

So far in the trial of our fictitious friend Ahmed Samir, it is legally possible that he was not informed of any of the evidence and that some of this evidence would not be admissible in a court of law.

It is now time for the judge to make his decision. Based on the evidence available, he decides to declare Ahmed Samir guilty. You may think, and rightly so, that Ahmed Samir must have some recourse, some recognized right to appeal in a society such as the Canadian society, whose justice system makes us proud, but no. When the judge issues his ruling, Samir is stripped of his citizenship and deported to his country of origin under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and there is no requirement to carry out the review or investigation provided for under that act.

Finally, the conclusion to this hypothetical but very plausible story is found in clause 17(9), which reads:

A determination under subsection (5) is final and may not be appealed or judicially reviewed.

This is the new federal version of democracy and the rule of law. Ahmed Samir is deported without any recourse. And what if the judge made a mistake? Even though that person is a judge, he is still a human being. Nobody is perfect. Anybody can make a mistake. We all know that, and it is even more obvious when we look at the federal government's actions. The right to make a mistake is also recognized by our society. This is why we have various levels of courts and why we can appeal a decision.

It is even not unusual for an appeal court to reverse the decision of a lower court. Why? Simply because that is the way of things. Judges, and the word says it all, are expected to judge, that is to pass judgment on facts, on the basis of evidence presented to them. Not all judges judge a given situation the same way. We must therefore recognize that mistakes are possible and give Ahmed Samir access to a defence worthy of the name. Above all, we must recognize that the right to appeal a decision is essential.

Georges Clemenceau, whom most of us in this House did not meet personally because he has been dead for quite a while, but have heard of, was a prominent French political figure from the late 19th century and early 20th century. He was famous for having been a key player in getting the Treaty of Versailles signed in 1919, among other things. He made a very interesting comment about Parliament that I wish to quote:

Parliament is the largest organization ever invented for making political mistakes, but the wonderful thing is that they can be put right, as soon as the country has the will to do so.

There is still time to act to prevent real-life situations like that of Ahmed Samir from happening next year or two or three years down the road. If we have chosen to live in a constitutional state, we must abide by the applicable principles and provisions.

Are we going to have second-class citizens? This is somewhat ironic, because the government boasts about promoting a unique model of citizenship. I say no. And I agree with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration that there should not be two classes of citizens. The minister stated very clearly that there would not be two classes of citizens. All citizens are equal and, regardless of how we become citizens, whether through birth or immigration, we all have the same rights and the same obligations. It would seem however, that all do not have the right to a fair trial with an appeal process.

Clause 3(d ) is particularly informative. It states that the purpose of the act is, among other things:

to reaffirm that all citizens, no matter how they became citizens, have the same status.

This is a fine statement, but will it apply in reality? In view of clauses 16 and 17 the answer is obviously no. In our opinion, do I have the right to appeal an unfavourable court decision? Indeed I do. Why then would an immigrant not have the same right? Is this to say that citizenship deserves to be treated with the respect required by the principles and values of a free and democratic society only when it suits us? I hope the government will be able to explain this somewhat controversial position in a clear, fair and respectful manner.

The time has now come to question a slightly archaic feature of Canadian society, namely Queen Elizabeth II. Far be it from me to suggest that this lady is not exceptional, nice and worthy of our admiration. That is not the question. But why should we still require newcomers to swear allegiance to the Queen when Canadian citizens by birth do not have to do so? Is it because we believe that the loyalty shown to her by citizens by birth inherently knows no limit? Some of my colleagues on the government bench may not agree.

If that is the government's argument, it should tell us. My colleagues and I might suggest the names of a few people who think otherwise. We do not have to go very far. If the Prime Minister were to look to his right he would see someone who shares our point of view.

In conclusion, I would like the government to explain something to me: why does Bill C-18, as it now stands, very clearly create two classes of citizens, with different rights and allegiance requirements, when it clearly states in principle that the purpose of the amendments is to reaffirm that all citizens are equal?

Once again, the government is shamelessly using a double standard.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for your kind understanding.

Parliamentary Reform

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing what passes for democratic revolution in the Liberal Party. Members openly vote against their leadership so they can secretly vote against their leadership when it comes to committee chairs.

While any erosion of Liberal authoritarianism is welcome, it does seem strange that it comes in this way on this issue. It would be stranger still if it stopped at this issue.

If the 56 Liberals who value their own privacy so much mustered the courage to vote against the latest security bill, Bill C-17, which according to the privacy commissioner massively violates the privacy of Canadians, that would indeed be an event of historic proportions.

We await the day when what happened yesterday extends to legislative as well as procedural matters. That will be the day that parliamentary history is truly made.

Public Safety Act, 2002

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I must inform the member for Matapédia—Matane that he will have 14 minutes left when we resume debate on Bill C-17.

It being 5.53 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

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

As my colleague from Sherbrooke says, there is either too much time or not enough time. In my opinion, there is surely not enough time. I would point out that we are talking about a bill that is an improved version of Bills C-55 and C-42, that is, Bill C-17.

When I spoke before on Bill C-55 as well as on Bill C-42, I asked myself a very basic question: Was Bill C-55 really necessary? Was it not in fact legislation introduced, let us say, at a very critical moment, in a wave of panic, after the events of September 11? And we all thought then, after seeing the legislation, that the government actually already had all the means it required to respond to what happened as a result of the events of September 11.

However, the debate continued. We made representations, particularly as regards controlled access military zones, about which we were very concerned. During oral question period and in our comments, we often mentioned, as an example, that overnight the federal government could unilaterally decree Quebec City a controlled access military zone, since there are military facilities within that city.

Fortunately, the government realized the excessive nature of Bill C-55. The issue of controlled access military zones is completely or almost completely solved, largely because of the work of opposition and Bloc Quebecois members. This proposal was removed from the legislation in the form that it had when Bill C-55 was introduced.

The other issue is that of interim orders. We also fought this proposal when it was made in Bill C-55 and, later on, in Bill C-42. Bill C-17 also includes provisions on interim orders, but the timeframes for their tabling in Parliament and approval by cabinet have been considerably reduced. However, these interim orders and timeframes remain. Our main problem is the lack of prior verification for compliance, as the hon. member for Laval Centre mentioned earlier. There is still no prior verification for compliance in the case of interim orders.

The third problem that we mentioned at the time was the exchange of information. Personally, I am very concerned that the government may again create a file that will include information on a large segment of the public, on travellers, on air passengers. This file will be created. The government says yes, but the information that will be included in this file will have to be destroyed within 48 hours by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. However, a small provision provides that, if necessary, the RCMP will be allowed to keep this information for a longer period.

I am quite concerned about this file that would be set up. We have seen cases in the past where files have been created. Orders were even given for those files to be destroyed. Just think about the Department of Human Resources Development, for example. Later on, we discovered that, unfortunately, the files had not been destroyed, that they still existed and that they contained a great deal of information about people.

At the time, a lot of the information was false. The data were completely wrong because the file had not been properly kept. Somehow, all the information got mixed up. So I am concerned about that. Unfortunately, this kind of file is still mentioned in the bill. The privacy commissioner also shares this concern.

Finally, I would say that, as citizens, we are the ones responsible for protecting our privacy. As citizens, it is our responsibility to tell the government that we will not accept any further interference in our private lives and that we do not want the government to create files. We will not allow the government to once again take our privacy and use it for its own purposes, whether the motive is security or something else.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague that excess in everything is harmful. In this case, it is the government that is being excessive. In one short year, following events that were absolutely catastrophic and monstrous, the government presented no less than three versions of a bill concerning public safety, each being supposedly an improvement.

We can recognize that the government tried to improve the bill, but efforts do not always give the results that were anticipated. When we hear the privacy commissioner say that he is still concerned about Bill C-17, we cannot simply write off his concerns by saying that he is wrong, that he knows nothing.

When the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord says that the charter is being complied with very well and that it is first and foremost, I would like to repeat what I said in my speech, because he might not yet have arrived when I gave it. In Bill C-17, interim orders are exempt from the application of section 3 of the Statutory Instruments Act.

This means that the role of the clerk is to check to see if the regulations do not unduly contravene existing rights and freedoms and are not, in any case, inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Bill C-17 relieves the Clerk of the Privy Council of any responsibility concerning interim orders, when the Privacy Commissioner as well as the Bloc Quebecois, and assuredly our friends in the NDP, are quite concerned about these orders.

I will ask the member a question, which he will not answer; I know that. I will ask my question just the same, so that he can think about it. He can give me his answer in the hall.

Why specifically exclude interim orders from advance verification of compliance with the charter, if they intend to abide by the law and the spirit of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

As far as I am concerned, there is no answer. This is incomprehensible. On the one hand, they want to abide by the charter, and on the other, they are taking out sizeable portions. I need clarification. I am waiting for an answer.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier for his questions.

I am absolutely convinced that not only the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord but also the Minister of Foreign Affairs were dazzled by my speech. In response to the member's question, I would have hoped that we would hear the answers in the speeches by our colleagues opposite.

We must acknowledge the fact that, since the beginning of this debate, very few Liberals have risen to speak to Bill C-17, to defend it, to explain why it is an excellent bill. Maybe they are embarrassed. If this is the case, it is a start, but I think that the reality may be different.

Could it be that our friends opposite are more preoccupied with their own internal affairs than with the affairs of the nation, with the issues that affect the quality of the democracy in which we live?

There is another reason that could explain Bill C-17. Maybe there ought to be, in this government, someone who can stand up to our American neighbours.

In the Bible, there is the story of David and Goliath. As long as David thought that he was too small and kept hiding from Goliath, he could not win. I think that the time has come for Canada to do something, and I am talking here to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I am sure that he is listening to me even though he does not seem to be.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my colleague from Laval Centre. I know the hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord joins me in expressing our congratulations to her on a well-researched speech full of literary allusions. We know how well read she is.

How does the hon. member explain the repeated refusal of the government to bow to the arguments of the Privacy Commissioner? How does she account for the fact that the proposed changes were much less widespread in the new Bill C-17 than in the bills that she called twins, that is, Bill C-42 and Bill C-55? What would she suggest to improve the bill so that it would be acceptable for all Quebeckers and all Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, we have been debating this bill, the half-brother of the twins, Bill C-42 and Bill C-55, for a few hours now.

A few years ago, a Quebec performer that you surely know, Richard Séguin, had his own version of this excellent Bob Dylan song called Times they are a changin' . Indeed, times are changing. And since September 11, 2001, many are saying that nothing is the same any more, that our world is changing. The case of Maher Arar, this Canadian citizen of Syrian descent who was deported from the U.S. to Syria without any justification, is proof that things are no longer the same since September 11.

We could also mention the fact that the people targeted by our American neighbours because of their country of origin can no longer travel without worry. There is no doubt that, while the world is changing, most of the time for the better, in this case it is for the worse.

Not long ago, we had the opportunity to speak to a certain bill on public safety. That was Bill C-42. The criticism was harsh, for a good reason. The government proposed a makeshift solution to a new problem in a changing context. Had it passed this Bill C-42, Parliament would have accepted that the most fundamental of civil rights and liberties be sacrificed on the altar of the constant fight, as we were told, against terrorism. But the cost was much too high and, in the end, reason prevailed and Bill C-42 was returned to where it came from, probably some computer's random access memory. We were naive enough to believe that the government had understood the essence of our criticism. But no.

Instead of showing some understanding of our views, the government used a ploy, but we did not fall for it. The new Bill C-55 was the twin brother of Bill C-42, even though it was born a few weeks later. Absolutely. For the second time, we would debate a bill on public safety. Unfortunately, the minister's imagination quickly revealed its limits. We were not fooled. This is why, for the second time, we opposed the idea of interfering with the rights and freedoms that form the basis of any democratic society that acts in accordance with its principles. Fortunately, when Parliament was prorogued, Bill C-55 died on the Order Paper.

But the more things change, the more they stay the same, and today we are debating Bill C-17, the half-brother of the other two. How times change. This bill is the offspring of a blended family or, in this case, a family which, actually, is divided into two clans.

Before mentioning the common features of Bill C-42, Bill C-55 and their half-brother, Bill C-17, I want to congratulate all the hon. members who strongly condemned the infamous controlled access military zones included in the previous two bills. Thanks to the work of citizens, civil society groups and people who care about fundamental rights, we managed to convince the government to listen to reason. The government had no choice but to see the obvious. It could no longer defend the indefensible. Logic should also help the government party, if only on certain occasions. This is why we should acknowledge this gesture of openness in the face of criticism. This shows that there is a constructive opposition in this chamber, an opposition that listens to the people.

Should we stop being vigilant now that controlled access military zones are not included in the new Bill C-17? 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.

While there are some differences in the monitoring of interim orders as compared with the provisions of the old Bill C-42, the absence of a preliminary check to ensure compliance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the enabling legislation poses a problem.

We can see clearly, when we read Bill C-17, that interim orders are exempt from the application of section 3 of the Statutory Instruments Act. As you know, 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 regulations do 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 all the tools we need to expose those who would threaten the security of the citizens.

We even tabled, in the fall of 2001, a motion requesting that the government implement all the necessary measures for us to reach our goal of giving 0.7% of our GDP for international aid. The reason was simple and still is: 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, both by members of this House and by the privacy commissioner.

It is interesting to know what the privacy commission thinks of Bill C-17. First, it would appear that his concerns about the defunct Bill C-55 were ignored, the ministers and top government officials having failed, so far, to provide him with an appropriate response. This is why he is now calling on Parliament to ensure his concerns finally receive the attention they deserve.

What is so worrisome in terms of privacy in Bill C-17? About clause 4.82 of the bill, which does not place appropriate limits on the powers of the RCMP, the commissioner says, and I quote:

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 equilibrium 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.

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.

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.

As hon. members may be aware, I have been on the citizenship and immigration committee for close to two years. The recent headlines leave no doubt as to the concerns raised by what our powerful neighbours to the south have been doing. If the government is trying to be subtle, as subtle as an elephant doing a polka on the clerk's table would be, that must not make us let down our guard in the least.

First, we have to realize that the public safety bill, just like several other bills, amends a number of pieces of legislation to keep them in sync with today's reality. Part 5 of Bill C-17 amends the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act, as follows:

1. (1) The Minister, with the approval of theGovernor in Council, may enter into agreementswith any province or group of provincesor with any foreign government orinternational organization, for the purpose offacilitating the formulation, coordination andimplementation—including the collection,use and disclosure of information—of policiesand programs for which the Minister isresponsible.

Similar provisions in part 5 allow the minister to enter into arrangements. But what change does this amendment make, besides the ability to make arrangements? It adds the words “including the collection, use and disclosure of information”.

The Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act would be amended to specifically allow the minister to collect information, to use it without indicating for what purpose it is used, and to disclose it without indicating what information can be released and to whom it can be disclosed.

In fact, Bill C-17 would give the minister the right to disclose the information to the whole world. Not only that, but it would allow 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.

Let us use a concrete example. The current Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is about to conclude an agreement with the United States on safe third countries. Even though this agreement worries us on several fronts, because NGO's oppose it strongly and the UNHCR is questioning the content of the agreement, the government seems determined to go ahead with it. The fact that this agreement will be implemented despite the concerns and protests from civil society is not very surprising. We can just imagine what the situation would be like if Bill C-17 were in force.

We already know that U.S. legislation on immigration and refugee protection is more restrictive than in Canada, to wit the recent revelations on how our neighbours to the south treat people born in certain countries.

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? What will happen with the information collected by the minister? One thing is clear, as soon as information is shared with another party, we lose control of it.

In addition to not knowing how the minister might use the information, it is impossible to find out what might happen to it once it was disclosed to a third party. Imagine the results. There is no way of finding out how the information might be used, any more than it is possible to find out the facts. How, then, can we control the dissemination of this information? It is naive, idealistic and even rash to believe that we could control a situation when we have not established sufficient limits.

That is not the extent of it, either. People may think that is enough already. Well no, not quite. Part 11 of Bill C-17 contains a few surprises. It contains, once again, changes to immigration. Indeed, it involves an amendment that would allow for the information collected from airlines to be used to implement any accord or agreement between the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and another party. What exactly is going on in the government? Does it feel so generous that is has to share personal information with everyone? Is it planning to set up a one-stop shop to disclose all of the information on new immigrants? Just take a number.

This is not right. We must be consistent with our principles. If we say that we have decided to live under the rule of law, we cannot allow insidious attacks on democracy to weaken what is meant by privacy protection.

Here is one last element, as if that were not enough. A new clause has been added to specify that the provisions for the collection, retention, disposal and disclosure of information, as well as any disclosure of information for the purposes of national security, the defence of Canada or the conduct of international affairs will be provided for through regulations. That is just wonderful. By specifying that regulations concerning these various elements will have to be tabled before each house of Parliament, perhaps the government thought that we would be easily fooled. To pull this off, the government will need to do much better than that.

Let me remind this government that, under the Immigration Act, once proposed regulations are tabled before Parliament, they may be passed without subsequent changes being tabled once again in the House.

To give a good illustration of what this means, it is as though you and I reached a contract that would bind us indefinitely—how horrible—but only I would have the power to change it as I saw fit, without your approval. Would you sign such a contract? Certainly not, and nor would we.

The government cannot always defend the indefensible. The same goes for the protection of privacy. But I am reminded of something that the philosopher Khalil Gibran wrote in Sand and Foam , and I dedicate it particularly to my colleagues in the government. He said, and I quote:

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

I hope that this will be instructive for our colleagues. It is true that the times are changing. Let us only hope that the party in office will finally understand that it must adapt to change by offering us appropriate solutions instead of constantly offering us the same options, month after month, session after session.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for his speech and also the member for Mercier for her excellent question.

However, I want to speak on behalf of ordinary citizens. As my hon. colleague from Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier just pointed out, we started with Bill C-55, which was introduced after September 11--and we know that everything changes when the House prorogues--then we got Bill C-42 and now we have Bill C-17 before the House.

When I read that the RCMP commissioner, among others, will be able to keep the information for seven days before having to destroy it, I realize, based on past experience, that the commissioner and other civil servants are being given discretionary powers. They can keep the information if they see fit to do so.

Based on what happened in the past, I have some serious concerns both as an ordinary citizen and as a Quebecker. My question will deal more with what Bill C-17 means for ordinary citizens.

For instance, in the area of law enforcement, what does it mean, for instance, to be on file? What does it mean to have some of our personal information entered in a new file? In the last few years, governments have used computerized systems to create a number of files. How safe are these systems? One has to wonder.

My question is quite simple. What does it mean for me, as an ordinary citizen, to have yet another piece of information about my private life entered in a computerized system like the one kept by the federal government?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today in this debate on Bill C-17, commonly known in the short form as the public safety act, 2002.

I am particularly pleased to address my colleagues and to express my opinion on this bill, because this is a controversial piece of legislation that highlights the lack of vision and leadership of this government in the control of national security, and rightly so. This is in fact the government's third attempt at passing this centrepiece of its rather mixed antiterrorism strategy and response to the terrible events of September 11, 2001, more than one year ago.

The fact of the matter is that a number of political observers have drawn attention to this state of affairs, as have those who oppose the legislative provisions put forward by the government.

The Bloc Quebecois is also against Bill C-17, because it contains provisions that are not well defined and gives intelligence services and the federal police powers that are particularly vague. I will have the opportunity to get into this in greater detail later.

I will divide my remarks into five sections: first, military security zones; second, interim orders; third, information sharing; fourth, amendments to the Immigration Act; and fifth, amendments to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act.

Let us address the issue of military security zones. The fact that this issue was taken out of the public safety legislation represents for the Bloc Quebecois and individual liberty advocates a very significant victory over a government that was pretty panicked, as we know, following the attacks of September 11, 2001, not by the fear of terrorist attacks on Canada, but rather by American pressure because of the lack of efforts made in previous years in terms of national security.

The Bloc Quebecois said repeatedly that provisions relating to the controlled access military zones posed a very serious threat to the balance that must always exist between security and liberty. My colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, whose work on this issue I commend, eloquently pointed this out.

These provisions offer the potential for abuse on the part of the government by granting a dangerous discretionary power to the Minister of National Defence. They also had the effect of depriving the citizens who might happen to be within these so-called security perimeters of their most fundamental democratic rights.

As for the declaration of special zones, this measure strikes us as far more reasonable than before. We will, however, be keeping a close eye on developments, will remain extremely vigilant and will be quick to speak out loud and clear if we see anything that seems to be headed toward potential abuse.

It is essential, however, and I stress this point, for no military security zone to be created in Quebec without prior consultation with the Government of Quebec and its approval. Too many bad memories are conjured up by the prospect of abuse by federal bodies within Quebec, in the name of national security. I shall say no more, but I am sure everyone knows what I am referring to.

In its present form, Bill C-17 still maintains the considerable irritants associated with the interim orders.

This third remake of the bill still contains provisions that allow ministers to issue interim orders. Worse still, in at least one case, this extraordinary and very great power is being delegated to departmental officials. Nothing could be more of an irritant.

There are, however, some amendments that represent a step in the right direction. Two relatively minor changes from what was in the previous versions have been made by the government in response to opposition pressures, from the Bloc Quebecois in particular.

The interim order must be tabled in Parliament within 15 days of its being issued. As well, the duration of the order is decreased from 45 to 14 days, that is the length of time it is in effect without cabinet approval.

It goes without saying as well that even the most serious of emergencies cannot justify the route the government wants to take for dealing with major crises. Bill C-17 still contains a provision for the Clerk of the Privy Council not to have to weigh the compatibility of the government's action and the scope of the interim measure against the provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the enabling legislation.

Coming as it does from the government that introduced the charter, this is a rather dramatic paradox, particularly considering the historic role of the Prime Minister of the day.

Of course, and thanks to the pressure exerted by the Bloc Quebecois, notable improvements were found between the first versions of Bill C-42, Bill C-55 and the current version. Unfortunately, what is known as the charter test remains a significant problem and this is all the more regrettable.

We cannot discuss the sensitive issue of public safety and, by extension, national security, without taking a direct look at the purpose and the scope of the powers given to intelligence agencies.

In this regard, the current wording of Bill C-17 allows two individuals, namely the commissioner of the RCMP and the director of CSIS, in addition to the Minister of Transport or a designated agent, to directly obtain from airline companies and operators of seat reservation systems, information on passengers.

This information may be requested if there is an imminent threat to transportation safety or security. As regards the scope of the bill for CSIS, such information may also be requested for investigations relating to threats to Canada's security.

Generally speaking, the information gathered by the RCMP and CSIS is destroyed within seven daysof being obtained or received, unless this information is reasonably necessary to maintain transportation safety, or to investigate a threat to Canada's security.

As members know, on May 6, the privacy commissioner released a document in which he expressed his concerns about Bill C-55 regarding the gathering of information by the RCMP and CSIS.

He had reservations about two provisions that allowed: (a) the RCMP to use personal information on all airline passengers to locate individuals wanted under a warrant for any offence punishable by imprisonment of five years or more; and (b) the RCMP and CSIS to keep personal information on passengers for purposes such as the examination of suspicious travelling habits.

As regards the first point, a number of provisions posed a problem, including the definition of the mandate, the provision allowing the RCMP to gather information to locate individuals subject to an outstanding warrant, and the provision allowing it to disclose this information. The commmissioner suggested that these provisions be eliminated from the bill.

In fact, under the current version, even though the RCMP can no longer collect this type of information, it still has the power to disclose the information obtained through the provisions of the bill to a peace officer, if it has reason to believe it could be of use in the execution of a warrant.

However, it is up to the RCMP to decide at what point a situation may threaten transportation safety, which enables it to access passenger information from an airline. There is no mechanism to control this. It amounts to a blank cheque for the RCMP.

What is more, once the information has been obtained, there is nothing to prevent the RCMP from keeping the information indefinitely if it is reasonably required.

The government tightened the definition of the warrant. In previous versions of this bill, it could be a warrant issued by the government for any offence punishable by imprisonment of five years or more. Now, the definition makes it clear that a regulation will specify to which crimes the provision will apply.

As for the second point, the commissioner expressed serious reservations regarding how long the information could be retained:

The seven day period during which the RCMP and CSIS may keep the information is excessive; 48 hours is adequate.

The fact that the RCMP and CSIS can keep this information indefinitely is of concern. There must be limits.

This is what the privacy commissioner said. However, neither of the two proposed amendments were included.

As a result, on November 1, 2002, the privacy commissioner said that Bill C-17 was a bill that was not satisfactory and that only contained minor changes.

Also, according to the commissioner:

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.

He added that:

—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.

Finally, he said that the proposed changes were and still are an insult to the intelligence of Canadians. The changes made to the bill do not 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 the database of individuals wanted on Criminal Code warrants, there can be nothing incidental about finding them.

Finally, as parliamentarians, we are directly being called upon by the privacy commissioner, and I quote:

Since the original Bill C-55 was introduced, I have used every means at my disposal to make the crucially important privacy issues that are at stake known and understood by all the ministers and top government officials who are involved in this matter. I regret that I have not, to date, been successful in obtaining an appropriate response from them, though I will certainly continue my efforts. 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.

It goes without saying that the Bloc Quebecois is in total agreement with the privacy commissioner's criticism and that we support him in this regard.

The amendments presented by the government concerning the power of the RCMP and CSIS to gather information on airline passengers are still far too broad. Even if the proposed amendments appear to deal with the bill's obvious flaws, the shortcomings pointed out by the privacy commissioner remain as they were.

In fact, we must keep in mind that the new data bank the RCMP and CSIS will be able to create will be in addition to the new one created by Customs and Revenue, to which both the privacy commissioner and the Bloc Quebecois have objections. More than ever, as my colleagues have already said, it is important to stress that it is true that “big brother is watching you”.

Part 5 of Bill C-17 specifically amends the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act. Two sections are added, setting out the possibility for the Minister of Immigration to enter into agreements or arrangements with a province, a group of provinces, foreign governments or international organizations.

The purpose of these would be facilitating the formulation, coordination and implementation—including the gathering, use and disclosure of information—of policies and programs for which the minister is responsible.

The proposed amendments do not hold water and seem quite weak to us. Indeed, the bill does not specify anywhere the goals or the scope of the agreements, except for the fact that they would be used to disclose information.

Since we are examining the framework of a bill dealing with the fight against terrorism and national security, and the information in question would be obtained through exceptional means, perhaps it would be appropriate to specify the nature of this information and the reasons for disclosing it.

With this change, the body of the bill would seem less problematic to us. But there is also another reality, just as difficult to control, associated with the very broad regulatory power.

Bill C-17 also contains major changes to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. About this part of the bill, we have some particular concerns that deserve to be considered more thoroughly.

Thus, is the objective of the proposed amendments to the bill not precisely to allow the sharing of information that we are condemning in the case of the RCMP and CSIS?

Consequently, for all these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois opposes Bill C-17 in its present form. While it contains some improvements over the previous bills, whether Bill C-55 or Bill C-42, it is obviously incomplete and flawed. It is for the reasons that I just explained that we oppose Bill C-17.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Dartmouth for her comments related to Bill C-17. I would like to question her in regard to her thoughts on the privacy commissioner's comments that the lists being asked for are too extensive in nature and that the usage of the list leaves it open for the privacy of Canadians to be jeopardized. I just wonder if she would further reflect upon his comments. What are her thoughts on that?

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak against 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.

This proposed public safety act, 2002, replaces Bill C-55, which was introduced on April 29, 2002, but died on the order paper when Parliament was prorogued in September. The proposed act retains key principles of Bill C-55. As previously set out in Bill C-55, the proposed amendments would give ministers the authority to issue an interim order if immediate action is deemed necessary to deal with a serious threat or a significant risk, direct or indirect, to health, safety, security or the environment.

The following acts are involved in this new Bill C-17: the Aeronautics Act, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Department of Health Act, the Food and Drugs Act, the Hazardous Products Act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act, the Pest Control Products Act, the Quarantine Act, the Radiation Emitting Devices Act, the Canada Shipping Act and the Canada Shipping Act, 2001.

The NDP has several concerns about this new public safety bill. Just from my reading of the number of acts involved, we can see the beginning of our concerns: This is a very large piece of legislation. Bill C-17 proposes to amend 26 different acts. Even though it has been introduced by the Minister of Transport, only 5 of the 26 acts that would be amended come from the Department of Transport. The bill will likely be referred to the transport committee, which will have to examine amendments not only to transportation acts but to other legislation such as the Food and Drugs Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act.

I am not suggesting that my colleagues who sit on the transportation committee could not examine these acts, but why should they? The point of having different standing committees on different topics is to allow proper parliamentary scrutiny of bills. The health committee should be dealing with the acts related to health. The citizenship and immigration committee should be dealing with the amendments related to its area. With the bill the way it is right now, the transport committee must do the work of 11 different committees. That is an awful lot to ask of the good people who sit on the transport committee.

Obviously what the government is trying to do is ram the bill through as quickly as possible so that no one notices all the errors in it. This is not the first time the government has presented a large omnibus bill with so many changes that the government itself cannot keep track of them. The bill makes a mockery of parliamentary democracy. Instead of presenting the bill as 10 or even 5 different bills that would be debated in the House and referred to the proper committees, the government has decided to put a bunch of different amendments into one sweeping bill.

Why has the government decided to introduce the bill as one piece of legislation? The bill deals with public safety and anti-terrorism. Perhaps the idea was to pass it as quickly as possible to show that the government is doing something about terrorist attacks, but without thinking it through thoroughly. It has been over a year since the devastating attack of September 11 in New York and this bill has been introduced three times now. Speed is obviously not of the essence so why does the government not take its time and reintroduce a series of carefully thought out bills?

I want to look at the changes to the Aeronautics Act within the proposed new public safety act. In Bill C-17, the transport minister's regulation making powers concerning aviation safety are better defined than they were in the former bill, Bill C-42. This is one of the things the government is trying to accomplish. The lack of specifics in this area was one of the concerns of the New Democratic Party with Bill C-42, so this is an improvement, but I am afraid it is not particularly successful.

In Bill C-17 there is a feeble attempt to address the concerns of the privacy commissioner. The clause allowing RCMP-designated officers to access passenger information to identify individuals with outstanding arrest warrants has been removed. The bill now allows RCMP and CSIS officials to access passenger information only for national or transportation security purposes. 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 more. The privacy commissioner has stated publicly that this change is not enough to protect Canadians' right to privacy. There are still insufficient safeguards to prevent intrusion, particularly since the information could be shared with U.S. customs officials, who currently have a racial profiling policy.

The NDP also remains concerned about the government's haphazard and ill-conceived airport security tax. No one knows how it came up with the magic number of $12 per one way airplane ticket or how this enhances overall security. What we do know is that it has added as much as 20% to the cost of airplane tickets, which has made it difficult for Canadians to travel across the country. While we are addressing this topic of public safety as it relates to transportation, I would like to remind the House that the federal government's $24 per round trip security tax is really imposing what is similar to the GST on airline travellers. This security tax is expected to raise $2.2 billion over the next five years. The cost of airport security will be only $1.5 billion.

The government's security tax will have a devastating effect on our national economy, the economies of communities dependent on a vibrant air industry, the tourism industry and an already fragile airline industry, especially Canada's smaller airlines trying to compete against larger ones such as Air Canada. My party, led by the efforts of my colleagues, the member for Churchill and the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, launched a national campaign against the punitive tax. We in the NDP say that it is wrong to selectively target a particular group of Canadians to pay a disproportionate amount of the share for security when all Canadians have a basic right to personal security, and it is wrong to ask one industry and the communities that will suffer from its negative impact to bear the brunt of that tax. The tax basically has done little to fight terrorism but a lot to fight tourism. We can all agree that in a country the size of Canada airline travel is most desirable. However, when the cost of air travel is increased by approximately 4% to 5% by imposing a government security tax it will do much to deter Canadians from choosing air travel in their own country. The airport security tax provisions within Bill C-17 are ill-conceived and need more work, not entrenchment in the bill.

Another criticism that the NDP has of the bill is that it still allows unprecedented powers within the cabinet. For example, the Minister of Transport would have wide-ranging powers to make regulations and orders concerning aircraft and airport security. The Minister of the Environment would have broader power for environmental emergencies. The Minister of Health would have an ill-defined power in case of emergencies as well. Our question within the New Democratic Party is this: Why not simply pass a bill that suspends democracy in case of emergencies? That is pretty much what the bill seems to be doing. The bill is really a power grab by the federal Liberal government. It is an infringement upon the civil liberties of the Canadian people.

We have to be very careful as to what powers we give ministers of the crown and what powers they can exercise without coming to Parliament for a democratic vote of the Parliament of Canada. I do not think I need to remind the House of how past Canadian governments have acted in emergencies such as the FLQ crisis or even the internment of Japanese Canadians during World War II, all because of so-called emergencies. Of course there are emergencies. There are times that we need to act quickly for public safety, but there is a fine line between acting for public safety and simply infringing on civil rights.

In times of crisis, the worst tendencies come out and almost inevitably target groups of innocent people. Right now at the U.S. border, Canadian citizens that come from targeted countries are being harassed, forced to submit to uncalled for fingerprinting, photographing and interrogation.

These are the sorts of policies that come from an unthinking government, a government that has knee-jerk reactions to crises. We cannot allow that to happen here. We must ensure that we continue to pass careful and thoughtful legislation.

I would like to close by urging the House to vote against Bill C-17 and to force the government to reintroduce smaller pieces of legislation so that we can properly discuss and debate some of the important security issues in this country.

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Matapédia—Matane for his question.

The beginning of my speech was quite precise in that regard. Because of my background, it is obviously easy for me to talk about the problem of the Privy Council and interim orders.

However, we cannot ignore such an important element being created by this bill. Unfortunately, it is not creating something new, it is only repeating the same mistakes. As I was saying earlier, in the case of the old Bill C-55, the Privacy Commissioner came to talk to us about all the nonsense related to the creation of personal information lists on all Canadians and Quebecers.

At what level can these lists be used? When an airline company draws up such important lists, there is an obligation to provide this information. There is an obligation to give this information to the airline company. In a roundabout way, the government is saying that it has changed something. Under the act, it was possible to check what was on the list and to see the names of suspected people and of those subject to an arrest warrant. Checks could be made immediately.

The legislation, per se, has not changed at all. We were told it was amended, but everything will be done through the regulations. Once again, I come back to the regulations. Once again, I come back to interim orders. A regulation is the same thing. A regulation will be put together by a bureaucrat who will decide under which offence the police, CSIS and the RCMP, will be given access to the list of personal information. This could well be your personal information, Mr. Speaker, or that of my colleague from Matapédia—Matane, or of any member or even minister. Any travel, domestic or international, requires that information be given to the airlines. One can see how initially, after September 11, this was useful. RCMP officers will be able to look at the list from time to time to see who has committed an offence and if this new regulation applies.

Once again, the regulation has not been drafted and Bill C-17 is not specific. Once again, we are handing over power to bureaucrats.

Only one part of this bill is very specific regarding information and privacy. It is a very important part. The Bloc Quebecois led the charge on this to protect the individual rights of citizens. Our freedom and democracy are being put on indefinite hold. We are in the process of altering important aspects of our society. I hope that the Liberals worked to build a free country. Now we are being watched. We have heard talk of “big brother”. We are in the process of giving the police tremendous powers. They will be the ones who decide when they want to use this list and for what purpose, perhaps even to arrest people who are not at all involved in terrorism.

This bill is a response to the events of September 11. However, it goes beyond that and it seeks to give far too much power, once again, to the RCMP and CSIS. We are well aware of what CSIS can do. We have already had a taste of it in Quebec.

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, during our research on this bill, we found that there are at least 10 other pieces of legislation that pose a problem with regard to democracy. Why is that? An interim order is already a lack of democracy, why?

An interim order, as proposed by Bill C-17, gives a minister the authority to decide on his own whether there is an emergency and to apply the new provisions.

Usually, when one makes an order, a regulation--an interim order is considered to be a regulation--in order for it to be approved it has to be submitted to the Privy Council to make sure that the enabling statute allows such a regulation to be made, in other words to determine whether or not this interim order can be made. This step will be bypassed. Something even more important will be bypassed, namely the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and its declaration.

So an interim order will be made. In other words, a minister will decide it will apply to a given area or for reasons that lead the minister to believe there is an emergency. Will it only apply to transportation? We will see.

This is the problem with regard to democracy. When a regulation is made, as we know, members do not see it. When a law is being drafted, parliamentarians get to vote on the bill. But in the case of a regulation, parliamentarians never see it. In other words, it is the civil servants who draft everything that governs us.

In the field of the airline industry, this is serious. Apart from the fact that civil servants will be allowed to make an order, the minister himself will make an order anyway and the regulation or order will not go before the Privy Council to make sure that the enabling statue allows it and that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom is being respected.

This is a huge lack of democracy. The bill will allow 10 ministers--not only the minister in charge of security or the minister of Defence--to make orders and to bypass the review that should be done when dealing with legislation on statutory instruments, namely interim orders.

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-17 dealing with public safety. During the last session, the Bloc Quebecois pointed out a number of concerns, flaws and specious arguments regarding Bill C-55.

Today, we can see that some adjustments have been made. The provisions dealing with controlled access military zones are one example. We are pleased to see that this controversial section that was a real problem has been completely withdrawn from the revised bill, thanks of course to the continued efforts of the Bloc Quebecois during the last session.

Nevertheless, there are still serious concerns with regard to several provisions of Bill C-17, which, obviously, have not been revised, let alone withdrawn. This is the case with interim orders. Even though the time provided for the tabling in Parliament and approval by cabinet has been reduced, there is still no advance verification for compliance, and that is cause for concern.

We are also concerned with the provisions dealing with the sharing of information. In this regard, it is clear that the proposed changes are seriously flawed. It seems that the effects of these provisions go way beyond the intent of fighting terrorism, and this is why we are against the principle of this bill.

I will deal with the flaws stemming from the provisions dealing with the amount of time the information can be kept. As clauses 4.81 and the following ones are currently drafted, Bill C-17 would allow the Commissioner of the RCMP and the Director of CSIS, as well as the Minister of Transport, to obtain information on passengers directly from the airlines and operators of reservations systems.

The bill also provides that information may be demanded in cases of imminent threats to transportation security.

This is even more serious when it comes to CSIS, since it deals with threats against Canada, and not only against transportation security. The previous bill, Bill C-55, provided that information may be required for the purposes of the “identification of persons for whom a warrant has been issued”. Subclause 4.81(6) of Bill C-17 states that this information must be destroyed within seven days after it is provided. However, it must be specified that it will not be done systematically since this deadline might be extended should it be reasonably necessary to do so for the purposes of transportation security or the investigation of threats to the security of Canada. Once again, the scope is extremely broad and will be certainly very difficult to limit in an appropriate and transparent manner.

The Bloc Quebecois wants to remind members that the privacy commissioner issued a letter on May 6, 2002, in which he voiced his concerns regarding Bill C-55. The commissioner mentioned among other things that he was concerned by the fact that the RCMP and CSIS could obtain personal information.

The commissioner expressed reservations regarding the provisions that would allow the RCMP to use the personal information of all airline passengers to search for individuals subject to outstanding warrants for any offence punishable by imprisonment for five years or more.

The commissioner also expressed reservations concerning the fact that the RCMP and CSIS would be able to retain the personal information of passengers in order to search for possible suspicious travel patterns. In the case of the use of the information by the RCMP, the definition of the mandate was a problem. Indeed, provisions of Bill C-55 allowed the RCMP to gather information for the purpose of searching for individuals subject to outstanding warrants. This clearly went beyond the stated purpose of public safety enhancement.

Moreover, the commissioner had concerns regarding the provision allowing the RCMP to release information on individuals subject to an arrest warrant. The commissioner suggested that these elements should be eliminated from the bill.

It is easy to conclude that the government tried to tighten up these provisions, but that it has failed.

In fact, even if the RCMP no longer has the statutory power to gather information for the sole purpose of tracking someone subject to a warrant, it can still provide police officers with the information gathered pursuant to Bill C-17 if it has reason to believe that it will be useful for executing a warrant under specific legislation.

The way the government is distorting the real purpose of Bill C-17, by introducing such provisions for the sake of public safety, is truly unbelievable.

For instance, it is up to the RCMP to determine when a situation becomes a threat to transportation security, which gives them the right to ask an airline for information about the passengers. It is not wise to let the police give its own interpretation of some provisions that will benefit them.

I am concerned that these provisions are not subject to any review mechanism. It is like giving carte blanche to the RCMP. We give them carte blanche to enfoce these provisions, but also to interpret what these provisions mean, which is quite worrisome. Parliamentarians seem to have backed away from their duty to supervise these things. We are very far from the transparency we were hoping for.

What is more, once the information is gathered, there is nothing stopping from the RCMP from keeping it, provided the reasons for so doing are recorded. Once again, I wonder about the degree of transparency this procedure is going to lead to.

The government has tightened up the definition of warrant. In the previous version, it might be an outstanding warrant for any offence punishable under federal law by imprisonment for five years or more. Now the definition stipulates that there will be a regulation stipulating exactly what crimes are involved.

I am still skeptical, when a bill assigns that much power through regulations. The effect of this is to strip Parliament of some of its powers of control and monitoring, and diminishes our role as parliamentarians. How many times have I risen in this House to refer to our diminished powers in this Parliament?

As for the second concern expressed by the Privacy Commissioner, this addressed serious reservations about the information gathered being kept afterward.

The seven-day period for which the RCMP and CSIS can retain information is excessive. A 48-hour period seems more than sufficient.

As well, the fact that this information can be retained indefinitely as a security measure is disconcerting. It needs to have limits set. I am referring to transparency here. It seems that this government has absolutely no grasp of what that concept means, which is deplorable.

Neither of the changes the privacy commissioner proposed has been included.

As a result, on November 1, 2002, the commissioner issued a press release in which he describes the changes between the present Bill C-17 and the former Bill C-55 as minor.

He feels that the provisions in clause 4.82 of both bills would give the RCMP and CSIS unrestricted access to the personal information held by airlines about all Canadians and all Quebeckers travelling on domestic as well as international flights.

He also voices misgivings about the fact that the RCMP would 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 added that, in Canada, citizens are not required to identify themselves to police unless they are being arrested or they are carrying out a licensed activity such as driving.

The Bloc Quebecois has often argued for the fundamental right to anonymity with regard to the state. The commissioner talked about it in his press release.

Since air passengers in Canada are required to identify themselves to airlines as a condition of air travel and since clause 4.82 would give the RCMP unrestricted access to the passenger information obtained by airlines, this would set a privacy invasive precedent.

In other words, requiring passengers to identify themselves to the police would go against the right to anonymity. This is the point the privacy commissioner made.

Lastly, the commissioner stated that the proposed changes insult the intelligence of Canadians and Quebeckers.

According to the commissioner, the changes that have been made in this provision in Bill C-17 do nothing to address the fundamental issues that are at stake and that are linked to the principle of anonymity.

In his press release, the commissioner mentioned that the government now proposes to have regulations limiting the Criminal Code offence warrants for which the RCMP will be searching.

The commissioner insists that such a measure, as it stands, 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.

According to the commissioner, in Bill C-17 the government has removed the “identification of persons for whom a warrant has been issued” as a “purpose” for accessing air passenger information under the legislation.

I agree with the commissioner that this is a disingenuous measure, 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.

Yes, it is true that all this insults the intelligence of Canadians to suggest, as the government did in its press release accompanying the bill, that the RCMP may “incidentally” come upon individuals wanted on Criminal Code warrants, if the police were to match names of passengers against a database of individuals wanted on Criminal Code warrants. Again, we have concerns about how the RCMP will interpret the word “incidentally”. It is a matter of transparency.

Finally, the commissioner calls on parliamentarians. I agree with him when he says it is up to us all to make the crucially important privacy issues that are at stake known and understood. We must therefore get the point across to all the ministers and top government officials who will be involved in the application of Bill C-17.

In this respect, the Bloc Quebecois has always been on the front line in standing up for the rights of all the citizens of Quebec and Canada.

The government amendments regarding the powers of the RCMP and CSIS when it comes to collecting information on airline passengers are still much too broad and confusing.

Even though it appears that the proposed amendments correct certain flaws, the problems raised by the Privacy Commissioner remain as significant and pressing.

This is why we intend to pursue our efforts in the House of Commons so that the rights of every individual are taken into account in government decisions. Consequently, we are opposed to these new broader powers given to the police.

Members should keep in mind the fact that the new data bank that the RCMP and CSIS will have the authority to create will be in addition to the new data bank created by the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency.

Now I want to draw mebers' attention to a second aspect of this bill that is of concern to us, namely interim orders.

The bill would amend 10 acts or so to enable the minister to make interim orders.

We took a close look at clause 66 of this bill, which amends the Food and Drugs Act. The provisions dealing with other acts are similar.

The new section 30.1 of the Food and Drug Act states that:

The Minister may make an interim order that contains any provision that may be contained in a regulation made under this Act if the Minister believes that immediate action is required to deal with a significant risk, direct or indirect, to health, safety or the environment.

30.1(2) An interim order has effect from the time that it is made but ceases to have effect on the earliest of

(a) 14 days after it is made, unless it is approved by the Governor in Council,

(b) the day on which it is repealed,

(c) the day on which a regulation made under this Act, that has the same effect as the interim order, comes into force, and (d) one year after the interim order is made or any shorter period that may be specified in the interim order.

30.1(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence consisting of a contravention of an interim order that, at the time of the alleged contravention, had not been published in the Canada Gazette unless it is proved that, at the time of the alleged contravention, the person had been notified of the interim order or reasonable steps had been taken to bring the purport of the interim order to the notice of those persons likely to be affected by it.

30.1(4) An interim order (a) is exempt from the application of sections 3, 5 and 11 of the Statutory Instruments Act; and (b) shall be published in the Canada Gazette within 23 days after it is made.

30.1(6) A copy of each interim order must be tabled in each House of Parliament within 15 days after it is made.

Section 30.1(4) provides that an interim order is exempt from the application of section 3 of the Statutory Instruments Act.

Section 3 of the Statutory Instruments Act provides that a proposed regulation shall be forwarded to the Clerk of the Privy Council, who shall ensure that the proposed regulation is authorized by the statute pursuant to which it is to be made and “does not trespass unduly on existing rights and freedoms and is not, in any case, inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights”.

In our opinion, these provisions are dangerous. These amendments are made with the objective of giving ministers the power to issue interim orders.

We can only conclude that the previous examination of orders, based on the criteria that Parliament adopted for statutory instruments, is set aside.

We feel that this is the first democratic deficit. It is important to point out that hon. members do not have a say in the process to adopt regulations, before they come into effect.

In the vast majority of cases, the Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations examines the regulations once they are in effect, often several months after they were adopted.

Since interim orders are in effect for a limited period of time, the committee's review may often not be conducted soon enough, which is obvious but ,more importantly, deplorable. Afterwards, when the minister applies the amendments to the Aeronautics Act, he will be able to delegate to a public servant the power to make interim orders.

In this case, we are disappointed to see that no elected official will be involved in the adoption process. In other words, this is a second democratic deficit.

We were pleased by the fact that the federal government finally agreed to the requests of the Bloc Quebecois and deleted from its new Bill C-17 on public safety the provisions relating to the establishment of controlled access military zones in the former Bill C-55. However, we remain opposed to the principle of this bill, because of the provisions on interim orders and because of the provisions relating to the RCMP and CSIS, for the reasons I mentioned earlier in my speech.