Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2019, with 50% of the vote.
Questions on the Order Paper November 29th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Motions for Papers November 28th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.
Question No. 54 November 28th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns November 28th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 54 could be made an order for return, the return would be tabled immediately.
Questions on the Order Paper November 28th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, Question No. 78 will be answered today.
Government Response to Petitions November 28th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to three petitions
Anti-terrorism Act November 27th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the comments made by the hon. member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore. It strikes me that the New Democratic Party has not listened to Canadians on this issue in the same way it did not listen to Canadians on the issue of our military going to assist in Afghanistan.
The NDP claims to support the military. However it says the reason the military is going there is wrong. That is not supporting the military. It is undermining the confidence of military families and creating anxiety among those families which is uncalled for and inappropriate. It is time the NDP started to recognize that.
I wish to deal with the amendment before us at the moment which would add the following in clause 29:
In no such case shall a person be bound to secrecy for a period exceeding fifteen years, unless otherwise indicated by the deputy head.
Let us examine what the motion is really about. It is important to consider the kinds of secrets that are being considered and whether or not we ought to be allowing secrets of this kind to be opened up after 15 years. The motion would amend clause 29 wich defines a “person permanently bound to secrecy” as:
(a) a current or former member or employee of a department, division, branch or office of the public service of Canada, or any of its parts, set out in the schedule; or
(b) a person who has been personally served with a notice issued under subsection 10(1) in respect of the person or who has been informed, in accordance with regulations made under subsection 11(2), of the issuance of such a notice in respect of the person.
That is all a bit confusing. What makes it clearer is the kind of person it is talking about when it defines special operational information. It talks about a person who has offered or agreed to be:
--a confidential source of information, intelligence or assistance to the Government of Canada.
That person might be inside or outside Canada. We cannot be confident or absolutely sure that the person would not be in danger 15 years hence if the information were disclosed that the person had been a source of information. It is not a reasonable assumption to make. The next one is secrecy in relation to:
(b) the nature or content of plans of the Government of Canada for military operations in respect of a potential, imminent or present armed conflict.
This is suggesting that it is not necessary to keep those things secret for more than 15 years. These are important kinds of matters. A terrorist could look at information of this sort that was used by the military in doing its planning and look at the intelligence it gathered to determine where that information came from.
It is not always only the person's name that is the key. Sometimes it is the fact that the military or the government has certain information and when that becomes apparent suddenly the person who gave it to the government is apparent to terrorists. It is a matter of great importance that the information be maintained and kept secret. The third part is:
(c) the means that the Government of Canada used, uses or intends to use, or is capable of using, to covertly collect or obtain, or to decipher, assess, analyze, process, handle, report, communicate or otherwise deal with information or intelligence, including any vulnerabilities or limitations of those means.
This is the kind of information that can make individuals vulnerable. The last thing the government wants is to place people in danger who have given information that is important to our security. That is what this clause would do.
We heard a lot today from the opposition parties about the time allocation motion and their anxiety and frustration with the so-called undue haste of the government. It strikes me as a bit hypocritical to hear this from opposition members because what we heard from them for weeks after September 11 was why the government had not moved more quickly. There was great anxiety and there were constant demands in the House for the government to move swiftly. For example, I refer members of the House to the Debates of October 16 when the hon. member for Provencher said:
The government has taken some important steps. Although we will be considering the provisions of the bill very carefully, it is imperative that the legislation move forward as quickly as possible. I therefore thank members of the House for the increase in the number of hours for debate to raise concerns and move the matter along.
A few weeks ago opposition members were talking about how important it was to stand shoulder to shoulder with our allies. Now they are telling us to slow down and not be in such a hurry. One minute they are telling us to go fast and the next to slow down. They ought to get their act together, get their messages clear and stop flip-flopping about what their view is on this matter.
Let us talk some more about how much debate there has been. Bill C-36 was introduced and read a first time on October 15, 2001. Second reading with extended hours took place on October 16, October 17 and October 18. In addition there were numerous opposition day debates on the same topic.
We had continuous demands from the opposition for the government to act after the events of September 11. We had debate about what the government response could be. We had all kinds of opportunities to express our views on how the government could respond to those events and what measures could come forward in relation to terrorist activities.
The government brought forward measures. We had those debates at second reading. They were referred to the House justice committee on October 18. That committee held hearings on October 18, October 23, October 24, October 25, October 30 and even on Halloween, October 31. It held hearings on November 1, November 5, November 6, November 7, November 8 and November 20.
The Senate was studying the bill as well. The special committee held pre-study hearings on October 22, October 23, October 24 and October 29.
We have heard from Canadians and from our colleagues in all parties. We are now moving forward as Canadians demanded and as members of the opposition demanded over and over in the House earlier this fall.
The real question is how should the government respond to the events of September 11? Do we go on as if nothing ever happened or changed? We heard a lot of comments around that time that the world suddenly became more dangerous on September 11. It is important for us to recognize that is not accurate because it did not become more dangerous that day.
We became aware of how dangerous the world was and what things could be done. We became aware of the terrorists who were in our midst and what impact they could have if we did not have measures to deal with terrorism, if we were not alert.
In spite of our best efforts we must admit that there may be times when things will happen, terrorist attacks may occur that we have not been able to foresee or prevent. I recommend to all colleagues that these amendments be rejected.
Questions on the Order Paper November 27th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Government Response to Petitions November 27th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to two petitions.
Questions on the Order Paper November 26th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.