House of Commons Hansard #135 of the 37th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was c-17.

Topics

Public Safety Act 2002Government Orders

11:40 a.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Pursuant to Standing Order 67(1) there will now be a 30 minute question period.

Public Safety Act 2002Government Orders

11:40 a.m.

Canadian Alliance

Chuck Strahl Canadian Alliance Fraser Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, this is one of those occasions where we need to address both the issue, Bill C-17, but also the issue of the democratic deficit.

It is interesting that the parallel universe the former finance minister is operating in is holding a special caucus meeting over on that side tonight to try to determine what we can do to make this place more democratic. Invoking time allocation and closure is hardly the way to increase democracy. For the record, this is the 83rd time the government has moved to stop debate in this place.

The former finance minister repeatedly says that we have to do something to change the way we address issues in the House of Commons, that we have to be more democratic and that the government should not bring down the hammer of closure whenever it wants to. The government has used it 83 times. Not once did the member for LaSalle—Émard ever vote against a single one of those motions. He has used the hammer that the government has as a majority to shut down the rights of the minority time and again.

We support Bill C-17 itself. We are not putting up more speakers. We are willing to go ahead with it. We think it should go ahead and we should move on with it. However, we cannot support the way the government tries to get its way. It seems to have one way, “It's my way or the highway”. We either agree or the government uses the hammer.

This is the 83rd time it has brought in time allocation or closure and it has been supported ably by the member for LaSalle—Émard every single time that it comes up for a vote. He is now going to supposedly address the democratic deficit in his own parallel universe tonight at the caucus meeting.

Would the minister agree that addressing the democratic deficit is not enhanced by a record setting pace of shutting down debate in the House of Commons on legitimate, controversial issues like the bill before us today?

Public Safety Act 2002Government Orders

11:45 a.m.

Don Valley East Ontario

Liberal

David Collenette LiberalMinister of Transport

My colleague from the Alliance Party seems to be talking out of both sides of his mouth. On the one hand he said that his party is for Bill C-17 and “we should move on with it” and then he said that this motion, a legitimate motion in the standing orders, should not be used.

There is a time for decision in all parliamentary debate. We believe that the decision is now. In fact he seems to agree with that because we should move on with it.

Let me remind the House that this was a bill that came here originally as Bill C-42. Then Bill C-44 was hived off and then it became Bill C-55 and then Bill C-17. The bill has been before the House for a year in one form or another. It has been debated at second reading nine hours and 35 minutes, three hours and 15 minutes at report stage, three hours and 25 minutes at third reading. All told, there have been 38 hours and 15 minutes of debate. Also the committee studied it from November last year until May 2003.

It seems to me that we have had a lot of debate. I say to my friends in the Alliance that this is not a matter for procedural argument. We are dealing here with a crucial piece of legislation that flowed from the terrible attacks on September 11, 2001. We had Bill C-36 and then we had the bills which I just referred to, ultimately becoming Bill C-17.

It is absolutely crucial in the interest of national security and in dealing with the North American security environment, that this bill be passed. That is why the government House leader correctly in my view has brought forward the motion today.

Public Safety Act 2002Government Orders

11:45 a.m.

Bloc

Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the minister that the bill before us is a consequence of September 11. We know that a number of changes and adjustments have been made to Canadian security laws.

I remember the first days after the World Trade Center attacks. There seemed to be consensus in this House that we did not want terrorists to succeed in restricting our rights and freedoms, when all was said and done.

The position of the Bloc Quebecois on Bill C-17 has always been based on the fact that it was necessary to preserve the freedoms of Quebeckers and Canadians. A number of provisions in this bill worried us, in particular the military security zones, and it does appear that the government has decided to listen to us on that point. In any case, that does not appear in the bill.

However, for the items called “interim orders” and “cooperative sharing”, we have pointed out that the government has paid no attention to the witnesses that appeared before the legislative committee, which you presided over. Moreover, we think that the government is going against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. For these reasons, it would have been wise to spend more time on what the witnesses and the members of Parliament have had to say. That is why we object to this sort of gag order.

As we said before, this is the 83rd gag order. Not only does the government not listen to the witnesses, do only what it pleases and follow the wishes of the Prime Minister, but in addition, it attacks parliamentary democracy by limiting debate and telling us, “You have just so many hours left and then it is over”.

You can understand that for us this is very hard to accept. I ask the minister if he thinks this is the proper way to act?

I think that there has to be the right balance of security, privacy and democracy. I think the minister leans much too far toward security, by imposing a gag order and ignoring the witnesses. This bill deserves further discussion.

Is the minister not putting too much emphasis on security rather than on democracy and the freedom of expression of the members of the House of Commons?

Public Safety Act 2002Government Orders

11:50 a.m.

Liberal

David Collenette Liberal Don Valley East, ON

Not at all, Mr. Speaker. In response to questions by the Canadian Alliance, I already explained that the Standing Orders allow debate to be ended once all the arguments have been heard.

I am extremely pleased to agree with the hon. member from the Bloc Quebecois on the need to strike a balance between respecting the rights and freedoms of Canadians and ensuring security. I think that, after all our debates both in committee and the House, we have struck this balance.

As the hon. member stated, we accept the position of the Bloc and those of members on this side of the House regarding the military exclusion zones, and we made changes by withdrawing the clause on these zones. So we have responded to members' arguments.

With regard to the other issues, the government's position is that once all the arguments have been heard, it is time to make a decision. That is what we are going to do today. The majority of members in the House of Commons want a debate followed by a decision.

As I already stated, there have been almost 40 hours of debate in the House; the committee debated this issue for almost one year. In my opinion, this demonstrates our willingness to listen to the opposition's arguments, as well as those of our Liberal colleagues. Once all the debates are over, the House must decide; that is why the government House leader introduced this motion.

Public Safety Act 2002Government Orders

11:50 a.m.

Progressive Conservative

John Herron Progressive Conservative Fundy Royal, NB

Mr. Speaker, I would like to send a message to the hon. minister.

It is true that this bill has been under consideration for quite some time, since 2002. It was before us last Christmas. There was also the summer recess.

We have had opportunities. If we needed to put this bill through and extend debate on it, we could have done that as opposed to recessing a few weeks early for the summer months or before recessing a week early last Christmas.

Mr. Speaker, you are probably aware that there is more than just a little bit of a rumour afoot that prorogation may take place as well. If the government has a legitimate agenda and it wants to get this bill through in an appropriate timeline, it is a little hard for members to take that we have had sufficient time to debate the bill and now is the time to make a decision. If we wanted to do that, we could have done that a long time ago.

I commend the minister for at least trying to bring forth a response to September 11. However, if the bill was urgent in order to respond to September 11, it is a little difficult to square the debate of this being a priority when we have had ample time to truly make it a priority and pass the legislation much sooner than now. When closure has been brought in for the 84th time by the government, it really does make that point very difficult to take.

I would like to know whether the minister thinks that is a reasonable point to make.

Public Safety Act 2002Government Orders

11:50 a.m.

Liberal

David Collenette Liberal Don Valley East, ON

Mr. Speaker, memories fade very quickly around here because right after the terrorist attacks there was unanimity in the House that we had to deal with our domestic security and we had to work with our American friends to improve border security and other security for the continent. That is why Bill C-36, despite some considerable debate and some initial flaws, was ultimately passed.

Then we required the second bill, as I mentioned. The fact that this is the third manifestation of that bill shows that we have been serious in trying to reflect the concerns of members of the House.

However it has been more than two years since the terrorist attacks and we are still saying that we need more time. At a certain point, if we are going to govern we must make a decision. The government will be proud to defend that decision to the electorate when we go to the electorate, perhaps early next year, because we believe this is in the interest of national security.

I should just say to my friends in the Bloc, who were arguing a few minutes ago, that we actually adopted two Bloc amendments: one that clarified our intention that the minister would be the one carrying out the requirements of the security measure wherever the minister considered it necessary to do so, and that is not a delegated provision; and a second amendment to make the definition of transportation security applicable to the proposed section 4.81, Transport Canada, as well as the proposed section 4.82, the Solicitor General.

In other words, we had this debate. The Bloc members came forward with a couple of amendments, and congratulations to them, because they made very good points. We were moved by their arguments and accepted their arguments. However the time for arguments is over. It is time now for action.

Public Safety Act 2002Government Orders

11:55 a.m.

NDP

Bev Desjarlais NDP Churchill, MB

Mr. Speaker, I will confine my comments specifically to the issue of the time allocation and the comments the minister has just made.

The fact is that the House is debating a bill that contains sections that are still extremely contentious. Some changes have been made but some issues, such as the one dealing with the civil liberties of Canadians, are really contentious. Many people of great stature have brought forth concerns over the civil liberties aspect of it and the risk it imposes on the rights of Canadians.

The minister made a comment that somehow 38 hours and 15 minutes was just a bit too much and that we should not have any more debate on something of such significance importance to Canadians. I want to read a quote to him from Stanley Knowles who was a member of Parliament for Winnipeg North Centre. This is from the Debates of December 10, 1968:

Debate is not a sin, a mistake, an error or something to be put up with in Parliament. Debate is the essence of Parliament.

The government has lost the essence of what was intended with Parliament by numerous time allocations, and it is not acceptable. There is a great democratic deficit here. People responding to the actions in the bill want more time. They want changes to be made and they want a chance to debate the bill in the House.

Public Safety Act 2002Government Orders

11:55 a.m.

Liberal

David Collenette Liberal Don Valley East, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am glad my friend from Churchill brought forward the name of Stanley Knowles. I served in the House with Mr. Knowles for 10 years, between 1974 and 1984. I used to attend the House leaders meetings as parliamentary secretary to the House leader with Mr. Knowles in the Constitution debate.

I accept that quote from Mr. Knowles in 1968. However I can say that from those House leaders meetings it was Mr. Knowles representing Mr. Broadbent, the then leader of the New Democratic Party, who believed that after all the debate we had on the constitutional resolution, the patriation resolution, that it had to be brought to a head and that Parliament had to finish the debate.

That was a very acrimonious debate, as members may remember. One night members of the Conservative Party stormed the Chair and touched the mace. There was almost a riot in the House. That was because they felt so strongly about the issue that they had time to make their case. In fact, at that particular point in time the now member for Calgary Centre, who was leader of the opposition, used dilatory tactics in the House to force the government to put the reference before the Supreme Court. However when it came back changes had been made. I specifically remember the position of the NDP with Mr. Broadbent and Mr. Knowles, which was, “We have had the debate. Enough is enough. We will support you”.

The member quotes one of the great parliamentarians of all time, Mr. Knowles, but even Stanley Knowles knew that at a certain period of time a government must, if it is to act responsibly, make a decision.

Public Safety Act 2002Government Orders

Noon

Canadian Alliance

Chuck Strahl Canadian Alliance Fraser Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, I believe the official opposition is acting responsibly in this. We do want the bill to move forward and we are doing our part in that by not putting up further speakers and not using delaying tactics, although there is always a balance between reasonable delaying tactics, discussion or debate by any opposition party, or maybe even some backbench Liberals, and the right of the government to bring forward legislation in a timely way. It is a balancing act and I recognize that.

However I would argue that it is not a question of whether we have enough time in the House to deal with what is a very important bill. It is a matter of whether the government manages the time in here properly in order to get through the business of the day. Just to use an example, we will be debating for the third time a bill to fuse the operations of the National Library of Canada and the National Archives of Canada because the government could not follow through on a promise made in committee to delete part of the bill. The minister comes back to the House and we squirrel away hours and hours of time, when it should have been done and was promised in committee to be dealt with expeditiously so we do not take up House time. Instead we are in here debating what should be a routine proceeding.

We have to cut off debate on important bills, like Bill C-17, instead of letting people speak it out. It is a big issue. Canadians are debating the appropriateness of the balance between the rights of the government and national security and the rights of private citizens to have the protection of the charter of rights. That debate should go on.

This party is satisfied and we are ready to move on but others are not so we should let them continue. The government should not be using the excuse that there is not enough time in the House to continue debate. If the government managed its affairs properly and fulfilled the promises it made in committee and elsewhere, we could go through some of those other bills quickly, leaving more time for important business, which is what should be happening here today, rather than shutting off debate. We probably only need an hour or two more of debate and we could get through this and move on.

I and my party are prepared to do that, but I am not prepared to tramp on the rights of the members of the Bloc Quebecois who want to speak a little longer. We should let them speak their minds and then we will move with it and support the government.

Public Safety Act 2002Government Orders

Noon

Liberal

David Collenette Liberal Don Valley East, ON

Mr. Speaker, the arguments by my friend in the Alliance are somewhat antediluvian in the sense that we have the opposition always arguing against any time allocation motions. In fact, in the old days, before the first world war, there was no way to cut off debate.

I believe it was on the naval bill in 1914 that the government of Sir Robert Borden introduced the first closure process. It was used a few other times, of course the most recognizable one being the pipeline debate in 1956 which was certainly mishandled. The government at the time paid the price in the next election.

However when rule changes came into the fore in the 1960s, the time allocation process was brought in. Time allocation is a kinder, gentler, milder form of ending debate. It is not closure in the rough and ready historical sense.

We need time allocation. We need more efficient management because at a certain point in time we need to move on to other important issues facing the nation. In a modern society we do not have the luxury that we had in Parliament before the first world war of not having any means to end debate.

We are not alone in that. In the United Kingdom, time allocation is almost a function of routine business. In a modern democracy we must allow time for debate but we also must end that debate to move on to all the other key legislative issues before Parliament, and that is what we are doing today.

We are not stifling anybody's right to speak. We have accepted amendments from the Bloc, other parties and from our own members but at a certain point in time a responsible government must decide to call Parliament to end the debate.

Public Safety Act 2002Government Orders

Noon

Bloc

Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC

Mr. Speaker, I rise again because the minister said something that got to me concerning the majority. I am not saying that the majority is not important; quite the contrary, I think it is important in a democracy.

However, after the majority has decided for the minority 83 times, I call that tyranny of the majority. When the minister explained that changes were made to the rules in the 1960s to introduce in a time allocation process, I did not write down everything he said, but I can tell him that the Liberals, when he was in the opposition, were probably the most vocal in denouncing time allocation.

There were entire periods when members such as our friend Herb Grey and probably the current Minister of Transport rose in this House repeatedly, while in the opposition, to condemn the tyranny of the majority.

However, now that he is part of the majority, he has become a tyrant and he has no qualms about it anymore. It is important that the government take its responsibilities. What we are saying in that respect is that the opposition also has a role to play in Parliament and that it has to be allowed to speak, particularly on bills that affect the freedoms of Quebeckers and Canadians.

Not only has the minister forgotten having been in the opposition, but he is also acting a s tyrant with respect to the freedoms of citizens and parliamentarians. Did he not, when in the opposition, rise in the House repeatedly to condemn the tyrannical attitude of the ruling party at the time?

Public Safety Act 2002Government Orders

12:05 p.m.

Liberal

David Collenette Liberal Don Valley East, ON

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to inform the hon. member that I never sat in the opposition. I have been fortunate to be only a government member. When the Mulroney government took office, I was retired, so to speak, or to be precise, the voters in my riding retired me. I came back, however, with the current Prime Minister, the hon. member for Saint-Maurice.

The hon. member is right nonetheless; it is an opposition tactic to criticize closure on debate.That is always the case. The same is true in England, France and every legislature around the world.

It is part of parliamentary lore, whether it be in this country, in the United States or in Europe, that the opposition always wants to demand more time and to have further debate. That is the function of the opposition. No one should be embarrassed about it but, equally, the government should not be embarrassed about discharging its duties and saying that enough debate is enough, that it has listened and it has been sensitive.

In this case, we are dealing with something of national urgency and high priority. It affects our relations with the United States because we need to provide a more secure environment for North America. It is irresponsible to keep the debate going even further because we are not discharging our obligations to the people of Canada to have a secure country and a secure continent.

Public Safety Act 2002Government Orders

12:05 p.m.

NDP

Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the minister I would say that he should be embarrassed with what his government is attempting to do here by putting closure on the bill.

This is not routine business. The bill is critical in terms of security measures and the potential infringement on the civil liberties of Canadians. We can see that the government is grasping at anything as a cover to bring in closure yet again on another bill.

For anyone to suggest that this is about a modern democracy and the fact that the U.K. brings in closure all the time and therefore we should do it, so what? We are talking about the Canadian Parliament. We are talking about upholding the public interest. This is not just about the opposition doing its job or the minister doing his job. There is something very important here and it is called public interest.

If anyone ever knew about public interest it was Stanley Knowles. We should not be invoking his name and saying that Stanley Knowles knew when to cut off debate. Pierre Elliot Trudeau never invoked closure 88 times like this government has done.

Just yesterday Maher Arar was released from Syria and is finally coming home to Canada. Bill C-17 would provide enormous powers to security authorities where we could see more instances of innocent people being targeted. If that question is not a matter of public interest and something that is worthy of debate then I do not know what is.

The government should be embarrassed for trying to shut down debate on a very important bill. Bill C-17 is a package of all of these security measures. This is now the last leg the government is bringing forward. We are here to alert Canadians to what the legislation is really about.

Shame on the government and shame on the minister for yet again trying to shut down debate on this very important question affecting all Canadians.

Public Safety Act 2002Government Orders

12:10 p.m.

Liberal

David Collenette Liberal Don Valley East, ON

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vancouver East talks about a public interest to be served. Those were her words. I agree with her.

The public interest has been served by a bill before the House for one year in three manifestations. There has been nearly 40 hours of debate here in the House of Commons, and in committee, for six months a bevy of witnesses have come forward, amendments have come forward and were accepted. That is democracy.

We are dealing with a bill that will help us provide safer air travel, secure environment for air travel, facilitate law enforcement and national security information between federal departments and agencies, and deter hoaxes that endanger the public or heighten public anxiety.

Bill C-17 would tighten explosives and hazardous substance use, as well as activities for other dangerous substances, such as pathogens, and for the export and transfer of technology.

The bill would help identify and prevent harmful, unauthorized use or interference with computer systems operated by counterterrorist agencies and deter the proliferation of biological weapons.

These are monumentally significant to the security of Canadians. I am sorry that my friend from Vancouver East was detained and could not hear my reply. I am sure she will read it in Hansard a little later.

The fact is that this is an important piece of legislation covering all of those areas. We have had all of this debate. Now we must, in the words of the member for Vancouver East, ensure the public interest is served. It will be served by enacting Bill C-17.

Public Safety Act 2002Government Orders

12:10 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Since there are less than two minutes left, I would ask that the question be short. The hon. member for Saint-Jean.

Public Safety Act 2002Government Orders

12:10 p.m.

Bloc

Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief.

We often hear about the expression “democratic deficit”. As a matter of fact, the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard has made it the centrepiece of his platform. I think that he will have some difficulty, because he frequently went along with the democratic deficit. He has been involved in it 83 times.

The fact that he went to Halifax to make promises as the Prime Minister, that he is going to British Columbia tonight to call a members' caucus and a premiers' meeting, is this not a democratic deficit?

He is not the Prime Minister right now, but he is the one who is taking credit for being the Prime Minister. He is behaving like the Prime Minister. Then, he gives us lessons on the democratic deficit. The government and the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard have a serious democratic deficit toward the House of Commons and Quebeckers and Canadians.

Public Safety Act 2002Government Orders

12:10 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I would ask the hon. Minister of Transport to make a last comment.

Public Safety Act 2002Government Orders

12:10 p.m.

Liberal

David Collenette Liberal Don Valley East, ON

Mr. Speaker, I will not lower myself to that kind of rhetoric. We are dealing with national security issues for all Canadians.

I would hope that my friend from the Bloc would accept the fact that we have had a lot of debate. We have actually accepted amendments that have come from his party which were reasoned and most acceptable.

The hon. member should address those particular issues, rather than showing his pathological fear of the member for LaSalle—Émard. The member for LaSalle—Émard will be the next Prime Minister of Canada and he will love the opportunity to meet the hon. member's party in Quebec in the next federal election and give them what for.

Public Safety Act 2002Government Orders

12:10 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Public Safety Act 2002Government Orders

12:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Public Safety Act 2002Government Orders

12:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Public Safety Act 2002Government Orders

12:10 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Public Safety Act 2002Government Orders

12:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Public Safety Act 2002Government Orders

12:10 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

All those opposed will please say nay.