Bill C-36 (Historical)

Anti-terrorism Act

An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Official Secrets Act, the Canada Evidence Act, the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act and other Acts, and to enact measures respecting the registration of charities in order to combat terrorism

Independence of the RCMP

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to participate in the debate on private member's Motion No. 391. I thank and commend the hon. member for bringing this motion to the House. To date the government has escaped criticism or questioning regarding the report released by Judge Ted Hughes.

Conveniently for the Liberal government, parliament was recessed when the findings and recommendations were released following the public hearings regarding complaints against the RCMP. Since the House resumed sitting on September 17, we have been preoccupied, and rightfully so, with the horrific events of September 11.

The unprecedented attack on America, and terrorism in general, has caught the attention of this country and the world. Canadians are anxious about the safety and security of our country and its people. They are concerned about the well-being of our friends and neighbours to the south as well. Therefore, all our efforts in the last two months have been focused on appeasing these concerns.

Despite this preoccupation, it is important that we address the issues raised by the Hughes report and discuss his many recommendations. Again, I commend the member for Saint-Bruno--Saint-Hubert, Quebec for providing this opportunity. It was a pleasure for me to second this motion.

If enacted, the motion before us today would have the government set out in writing the nature and the scope of the independence of the RCMP in its relation with the federal government, as recommended by Judge Hughes.

In his report Hughes concluded that the federal role at APEC was improper and that the RCMP succumbing to government influence was not appropriate. Therefore, Hughes recommended that the federal government bring in legislation to spell out the RCMP's independence from government interference.

In section 10 of his report, Hughes said that currently the nature and extent of police independence is not clearly defined in Canadian law. Furthermore, he stated “there is no consensus, either in academic writing or in judicial decisions, as to what is the proper relationship between the federal government and the RCMP although it is generally agreed that the RCMP does enjoy a measure of independence”.

In fact, Hughes believes that the RCMP Act suggests that the force is not entirely independent of the government by stipulating that the commissioner of the RCMP is appointed by cabinet and controls the force under the direction of the solicitor general. Indeed, the commissioner of the RCMP is a deputy minister in this cabinet serving under the solicitor general.

After reviewing the English approach and the supreme court decision in R. v Campbell, Hughes stated “it is clearly unacceptable for the federal government to have the authority to direct the RCMP's law enforcement activities, telling it who to investigate, arrest and prosecute or other purposes. At the same time, it is equally unacceptable for the RCMP to be completely independent and unaccountable, to become a law unto themselves”.

Based on this conclusion, Hughes recommended, under recommendation 31.3.1 of his report, that the RCMP request a statutory codification of the nature and extent of police independence from government with respect to two areas: first, existing common law principles regarding law enforcement; and, second, the provision of and responsibility for delivery of security services at public order events.

Responding to the Hughes report, RCMP Commissioner Zaccardelli dismissed this key recommendation saying that there was no need in his opinion for statutory recognition of police independence. To date the government has not embraced the recommendations, although it has accepted and is attempting to enact the second part of the Hughes report under Bill C-35.

Canadians must have confidence that the RCMP can do its job. That includes doing its job in respect to investigating the government in suspected cases of wrongdoing without the fear of there being reprisals or interference.

Canadians must also be confident that the commissioner of the RCMP, although a high ranking public servant, is not and does not simply become a puppet of the current government supporting its policies and programs even when it may be detrimental to our national police force and to the very frontline police officers.

A couple of weeks ago Commissioner Zaccardelli appeared before the justice committee as a witness in regard to Bill C-36. During his testimony and subsequent questioning Mr. Zaccardelli said:

Obviously, we are very pleased with the resources we have been given by the government. This is not just with respect to the terrorist activities--

The commissioner went on to say:

Could I use more? Yes, I could. The government, as I said, has been very responsive to our needs as we deal with this.

In direct contradiction to Commissioner Zaccardelli, the Canadian Police Association which represents 30,000 officers across Canada including some RCMP officers told the justice committee that the $9 million recently given to the RCMP as part of the government's anti-terrorism initiative was not enough to meet the exceptional demands placed on the Mounties since the September 11 attack.

The $9 million would only allow the RCMP to hire 72 new recruits as 2,000 officers are pulled off priority organized crime cases and frontline community policing duties.

While the commissioner said the RCMP could always use more staff, Michael Niebudek, Canadian Police Association vice-president, told us there clearly is a staffing shortage. He says there are insufficient resources for the RCMP to work on both terrorism and organized crime investigations and that the RCMP has shelved important organized crime work across Canada. Mr. Niebudek said:

Under this flavour of the month approach, enforcement resources are allocated based on shifting political priorities. We have been robbing Peter to pay Paul, and the shell game has to stop.

While the commissioner praised the government and said it had been responsive to RCMP needs, Mr. Niebudek said the government must move swiftly to repair gaping holes in Canada's security and enforcement capabilities.

In response to Mr. Niebudek's comments the solicitor general denied the RCMP was unable to do its job properly because it lacked money and staff. According to an article in last week’s National Post the solicitor general said:

What I've received from the RCMP Commissioner is that they are certainly able to fulfill their mandate.

While the top police bureaucrat and his boss say one thing, our frontline officers are saying something quite different. Clearly Mr. Zaccardelli is supporting or siding with the federal government when he should be supporting his frontline officers and defending the safety and security of our country's citizens.

It was only this spring that we brought witnesses to the justice committee in regard to a bill dealing with organized crime. We understood the severity of organized crime in Canada. We should not be shelving or putting on a back burner investigations that may lead to the apprehension of organized criminals, drug traffickers and other like-minded criminals.

We have a war on terrorism, unquestionably. However we have a war on organized crime as well. This war is a concern and it is bringing down our society as we see it. For the commissioner of the RCMP to be taking people off the organized crime file is irresponsible.

The commissioner of the RCMP should be fighting for the necessary resources so the RCMP can effectively meet the demands being placed on it because of the September 11 attack. For Mr. Zaccardelli to be doing otherwise and accepting the pittance provided to the force by the federal government demonstrates that he is a puppet of the solicitor general. This must be changed.

RCMP independence from the government must be statutorily codified as recommended by Judge Hughes. I therefore support private member's Motion No. 391.

Anti-terrorism Legislation

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

Mr. Speaker, the verdict is in from the other place. Along with the majority of witnesses appearing before the two parliamentary committees, along with some ministers and MPs, the Senate also is extremely apprehensive about Bill C-36 going too far. This is evident in the major changes they have recommended.

Is the Prime Minister going to allow the necessary amendments as well as a free vote on this bill?

Anti-Terrorism Legislation

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-36 provides for the offence of terrorist activity which is broadly described to include facilitating, participating in, financing or directing terrorist activities.

The decision not to ban membership of groups is to overcome a major legal difficulty of proving membership. It also can have constitutional implications. The way of targeting anyone who takes part in terrorist activity or facilitates, participates in, finances or leads it is a much more effective way of catching those who are responsible.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-36 allows the Government of Canada to implement more than 12 international conventions dealing with terrorism. Many of those provisions allow for extraterritorial charges to be laid and proceeded with in Canada, but also provide obligations for extradition where appropriate.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, we have provisions now in the Immigration Act, section 40, which allow for the deportation and removal of people who have been suspected of terrorist activities. We have mutual legal assistance treaties with many countries. We have extradition treaties with many countries.

Bill C-36 also addresses the issue of people who facilitate terrorist activity as described. These people can be detained and they can be extradited or deported in the appropriate circumstances.

Privilege

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

Mr. Speaker, I realize you have important guests so I will try to be brief on my question of privilege. Opinion is divided on whether or not this is a question of privilege. I am told by some that it is and some that it is not. It is however an important matter to bring to the attention of the House as it pertains to the right or opportunity of ordinary MPs to have access to government officials.

It is something that has arisen in exceptional circumstances. We will need your decision on whether it is a question of privilege, or even has the aura of a question of privilege, to decide whether or not it should be considered.

I will remind everyone that in the House we are a company of equals. When I stand or sit at my place I am exactly equal to the Prime Minister in his place. Every colleague is equal to every other colleague, be they ministers, parliamentary secretaries, members of the opposition or otherwise.That is why all our desks are exactly the same.

That is why, I might add, Mr. Speaker, you sit in an elevated chair, not because you lord it over us but because you are our servant. You are the one who makes sure that we do act as equals in the Chamber and indeed on Parliament Hill because as members of parliament we serve the public equally. We do many things by common consent. We decide who is the government. We set up rules in the House. Everything functions in the House by common consent.

I have an instance that appears to be outside the rules of parliament. No rules exist to cover the situation that occurred to me as an individual MP. I am referring to attempts last June by a group of members of parliament to set up a special committee to examine an issue of immense public interest.

The special circumstance was that it was summer and the House was not sitting. We thought we had a deadline. We wanted to present a report before a bureaucratic task force that existed on the Access to Information Act. We thought it was very important that we do this as soon as possible during the summer months.

Part of our plan was to receive briefings from government officials. We sought out those government officials and we had a work plan. We lined them up and many of them agreed to appear before our group.

We were going to hold meetings for the record in the open on Parliament Hill with all the attention to detail of a normal standing committee. However, and this is so important, we were not a standing committee. We were a group of MPs from all sides of the House who were not part of government and who were concerned about an important public issue.

To our surprise, the government suddenly ordered the officials we had lined up not to appear before our committee. The order extended not only to the government officials that we lined up but also to officials from crown corporations. It was every official in government. We had also hoped to talk to some very junior people with respect to access to information.

The issue is not the reason why the government decided to do this. We recognize that the government has certain powers that we by common consent give to it. One of those powers is the right to determine when public officials appear before members of parliament.

What is different in this particular case is that a situation occurred where backbench members of parliament were not carrying out ordinary business. They were carrying out exceptional business, in the sense that the law we were looking at was a law that was quasi-constitutional and affected all members of parliament. Ironically there is a direct analogy with Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism legislation that is before the House because this is a piece of legislation that affects civil liberties. Consequently it affects all members of parliament.

There are situations which occur in which backbench members of parliament or ordinary members of parliament, if you will, might find an absolute necessity to receive briefings from government officials. This is not trivial. It is not as though this was just a casual incident where a group of MPs wanted a briefing from government officials. I think we would all agree that the government would be correct in determining when and where it was appropriate to do this. This was an exceptional circumstance. The government said no and the officials were unable to come.

Mr. Speaker, the guidance I seek from you is that I think there are exceptional circumstances where members of parliament are acting in the most absolute interest of the public, in which the government needs some guidance from parliament, some guidance where it recognizes there are exceptional instances where there should be some sort of mechanism whereby the MPs who are seeking these briefings from officials, briefings in public I might add, can go to perhaps you, Mr. Speaker and say “Mr. Speaker, this is an exceptional circumstance. Will you advise the government on whether this is an appropriate request?”

Mr. Speaker, what I am asking is if you feel that I as an individual have had my work compromised as a result of this decision of the government.

I have before me the report of this committee of MPs who were studying the Access to Information Act which was presented to the public today. It is entitled “A Call for Openness”. It is an excellent effort on the part of backbench MPs to examine a very important issue. Mr. Speaker, I regret to tell you that although I think it is an excellent report, it is less than what it could have been because we were unable to receive briefings from public officials whom we had asked to appear and had no opportunity to question them.

It seems to me that this strikes to the very heart of the privileges of a member of parliament. Whether we are prime minister or backbench MP, when we set out to examine a policy issue that is in the deep public interest, we must have access to the officials whom we need to have access to. It cannot be left absolutely to the government to decide that issue. I am not saying that on a day to day rhythm of things that the government should not have this say, but there are exceptional instances and I believe this report “A Call for Openness” is an exceptional instance.

This report contains 11 recommendations. It is a clarion call for more transparency on the part of government. I have to say that it is a unanimous report by 12 backbench MPs covering most of the major parties. The contribution was entirely non-partisan. I want to particularly mention the Bloc MPs, the member for Saint-Jean and the member for Kamouraska--Rivière-du-Loup--Témiscouata--Les Basques, who made a particular contribution that we all applauded. So, Mr. Speaker, I do not want you to think that this was not an entirely joint effort.

I do not know what the answer is. I think the government acted the way it thought it should act. I think it was perhaps afraid that if backbench MPs can call government officials, that this might happen all the time. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, it would happen only rarely. I think every one of us on the committee still believes in partisan politics. We were no less members of our parties because we were acting in a non-partisan way. It was a very fine example of the kind of co-operation that can occur in the House.

Consequently, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to consider my remarks. What I would like to do is that if you feel that there is a prima facie case for a breach of privilege here, I would like to suggest that I would move a motion that the matter be referred to the appropriate committee of the House to give guidelines to the government on how to deal with these very exceptional instances where backbench MPs might feel they have to gather in a non-partisan manner, and I mean non-government MPs, to consider a major issue. Mr. Speaker, I do thank you.

Anti-Terrorism Legislation

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the justice minister is conveniently ignoring the fact that Bill C-36 is a particular threat to visible minorities and that is why there is a split in this caucus.

If the Prime Minister refuses to listen to Canadians, perhaps he can listen to his colleagues. They are worried about this bill and its potential for abuse. Instead of bullying them, perhaps the Prime Minister could start listening to them.

Why will the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice not act on their advice and commit now to a sunset clause?

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, more and more Canadians are joining our call for a sunset clause in Bill C-36, the Canadian bar, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the Newspaper Employees' Guild, Canadian Civil Liberties, the Security Intelligence Review Committee, the Special Senate Committee and others.

It is time for the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice to send a clear signal that they will support a sunset clause. Will they do that today?

Air Canada Public Participation Act

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

Madam Speaker, today's debate on Bill C-38 is in connection with Air Canada's demands for a review of the ceiling on individual ownership of shares.

The Bloc Quebecois will support Bill C-38.

Of greatest concern are the speeches by the Minister of Transport and the representative of the official opposition on the future of Air Canada and airlines in Canada.

Bill C-38, a simple bill with only three pages, repeals section 6 of the act. I will read it for the men and women of Quebec. The Air Canada employees watching us surely understand it. The act contained, and I quote:

1. (1) provisions imposing constraints on the issue, transfer and ownership, including joint ownership, of voting shares...to prevent any one person, together with the associates of that person, from holding, beneficially owning or controlling, directly or indirectly...voting shares to which are attached more than 15% of the votes that may ordinarily be cast to elect directors of the Corporation—

What the Minister of Transport is proposing in Bill C-38 seems thoroughly harmless. It would, however, allow a single shareholder to hold more than 15% of shares. It would be this shareholder other shareholders or entities who would hold the shares. They would thus have the right to take over control or to take part in the control of Air Canada's board of directors.

Is this desirable? It is what Air Canada is asking for. It is thought that investors could be interested. Citizens and companies across Canada will probably want to buy Air Canada shares, ensuring with colleagues, friends or related corporations that they have a certain degree of control over the board of directors so as to be able to play a greater role in the company's decisions, to perhaps be able to run it better and turn a profit. This would surely allow them to make some sort of return on their investment.

What this means is giving Canada's business community a free hand to control, to continue to control and to increasingly control this national company, Air Canada.

This is cause for concern, because the minister has told us quite candidly what our neighbours to the south have done. He has told us in all sincerity that the Americans provided massive assistance to the airline industry, over $15 billion he tells us, and that was the figure. Five billion dollars in direct aid and $10 billion in loan guarantees. A choice was made. In the wake of the sad events of September 11, the Americans decided to invest heavily. The minister was quite open about this. The Americans invested heavily, he told us, and that is so. The figure mentioned was $15 billion to revive the airline industry.

Other countries in the world suffered, such as Switzerland's Swissair, which sought bankruptcy protection. Switzerland decided to invest heavily in a company called Crossair, a regional airline in Switzerland. This company will soon buy up Swissair's shares and revive the airline industry. Switzerland has made a choice. It decided to invest heavily in Crossair, which will soon take over the defunct Swissair. This is a choice as a society.

What is saddening to hear today is that Canada has decided to give the market free rein and not to make any massive investments to kick start the airline industry. Anything it does do is on a bit by bit basis. Canada's approach is a piecemeal one. At the outset, the minister announced investments to meet high insurance costs.

As a result of the sad events of September 11, the airlines were faced with astronomical hikes in insurance costs. Some carriers were no longer even able to insure themselves. The government therefore decided to compensate them for the astronomically high premiums they were being charged for insurance.

It then reimbursed expenses. Since the air space was totally closed down, all companies' equipment was grounded. The Government of Canada decided, still within its piecemeal approach, to announce one week later that it would offer compensation and assistance, reimbursing the airlines' losses that were the result of the six day closing of Canadian air space.

This assistance was in dribs and drabs. After that a loan guarantee program was announced, followed last week by another loan guarantee to Canada 3000 of $74 million.

The minister refers to a business restructuring. He spoke of massive staff reductions. Once again the minister helped out Canada 3000 once it had restructured and, in particular, made massive staff cuts.

The minister has told us very candidly that the government can help the five major carriers in Canada, including Air Canada, Air Transat, WestJet and Canada 3000. He said very candidly “once they have restructured”. Downsizing is an important part of the restructuring of any company.

This is a message to the employees of all these airlines in Canada and Quebec, saying “In the end, you are the ones who will pay for the September 11 events. We will help—as was the case with Canada 3000—once your company has restructured financially”. And the minister adds “once your company has reduced its staff”.

In order to get help from the federal government, airlines must absolutely restructure. They must submit a restructuring plan that includes staff reductions. This is very hard to accept for airline industry workers, because what happened on September 11 was not their fault. It is not their fault if their industry suffered such setbacks but they are the ones who are paying for this.

Again, this applies to four airlines at the exclusion of Air Canada. In the agreement and in the various acts, very important guarantees were demanded for Air Canada. Such guarantees were demanded by the Bloc Quebecois, which questioned the government in debates on the various acts establishing Air Canada as we know it today, and by others. Why? To protect the rights of workers.

Air Canada is the largest airline, with 80% of Canada's air traffic. Therefore, it is important that it be afforded some protection. When Canadian was integrated with Air Canada, we made sure that workers would not lose. As the minister said, we made sure that small municipalities would be served. This has always been a requirement in the original legislation that is now being amended. These requirements have not changed. Protecting the rights of workers and serving small municipalities are still requirements under the acts that established Air Canada and French in the skies.

It is sad to hear speeches such as that of the Alliance member in a country where there are two founding peoples, anglophones and francophones. Members will understand why, with such speeches, that sovereignty is not dead in Quebec. If we were to hear speeches like that of the Alliance member every day, I am sure sovereignty would take off for the pure and simple reason that francophone rights must be protected.

And the law provides for the protection of French in the air.

What is harder to accept is the fact that 136 complaints are before the commissioner of official languages. They were lodged against Air Canada because French is not respected in the air. This is the harsh reality.

It is hard to hear the representatives of the Canadian Alliance say, today, that it is time to stop protecting French in the air, a practice established by one of the two founding peoples, thanks to representations by the Bloc Quebecois, among others. Air Canada is Canada's largest airline, carrying 82% of the volume.

Obviously we must carry on and make sure that the rights of travellers are protected. As regards service to small municipalities—I am using the minister's expression—it must be protected. That is what the minister said earlier.

There are no large or small municipalities. Canada was built from communities that diversified their approaches. Communities were established around natural resources. Cities—this is the term we should use and not small and large municipalities—were established across Canada.

No law makes a distinction between towns and cities in Quebec. They are cities. There are no large and small cities in the Quebec Loi des cités et villes. There are cities. Obviously, there are cities in the regions and there are cities near major urban centres, and the law must protect and continue to protect service to cities in the regions.

Canada owes its existence to its natural resources and continues to be very much a country of natural resources. The future is very important for all regions of Canada. Such is the diversity of Canada, what makes it great. We are one of the largest countries in the world in which the decision has been made to allow the market to operate freely.

That is where the problem lies. In such a vast country, a country of such diversity, the strength of which depends in large part on the natural resources located in distant regions, the government has a duty to intervene in order to ensure that transportation services are maintained, including the most rapid means of transportation, air service, so that regional cities are connected with the major urban centres.

That is why it was hard to swallow today the statement in the minister's speech saying that, with Bill C-36 which merged Air Canada and Canadian, we obtained and included protection for service to small municipalities.

I hope he will rethink his choice of words. Cities in the regions have as much right to air service as major urban centres. That is reality. Just as Canada's francophone air travellers have as much right to service in their own language as anglophones.

I am proud that the act which created Air Canada protects the use of French in the air. I hope the rumours that Air Canada wants to abandon Air Canada Regional precisely because the use of French in the air is a constraint on the expansion of all the businesses that make up Air Canada Regional, are not true.

Apparently they want to abandon these businesses, sell them or transfer a part of their routes. That is the current rumour. This is an attempt to improve the bottom line and to avoid having to respond to the 136 complaints received by the official languages commissioner against Air Canada regarding the use of French in the air.

It is difficult and it is a hard fight but we must continue to fight to protect the rights of workers under the statutes that created Air Canada as we know it today. We must continue to protect service to cities in the regions, and not small municipalities as the minister said, and protect the use of French in the air.

This bill only changes the percentage of individual or group participation in the share capital of Air Canada. It only amends this clause.

The Bloc Quebecois will support Bill C-38 for the simple reason that the rights of workers at Air Canada will still be protected, as will service to cities in the regions, and the use of French in the air.

We must continue to fight so that cities in the regions of Canada and Quebec are better served and that the use of French, the language of one of the two founding peoples of Canada, is better protected in the air.

This is a commitment which the Bloc Quebecois is determined to defend in the House.

It is sad to see the federal government deciding to put its faith in the free market in something as important throughout Canada as the airline industry. This is a position strongly backed by the Canadian Alliance, which would like to go much further. It would be a disaster for Canada's entire airline industry for the good and simple reason that this great country of Canada, and of Quebec, needs flights linking cities in the regions with major urban centres. They do not all have the same number of inhabitants and are so diversified that we must support them. In my view, the Government of Canada would do well to do as Switzerland or the United States have done and provide massive aid to the airline industry. It is a vital part of our economy.

Companies such as Bombardier were able to create markets in aeronautics because we in Canada were heavy users of air services. The entire aeronautics industry is supported by the airline industry and we must encourage this industry and its workers. They should not have to pay for what happened on September 11. They should not bear the brunt of industries' losses through the loss of their jobs. We are condemning entire families to poverty just because the government decided to give the market free rein.

I call on the minister to rethink his position on this issue. I call on the federal Liberal government to start looking at the larger picture and to send out a clear message. I hope the Minister of Finance will understand and that in his next budget he will announce heavy investments to support Canada's airline industry. As in the United States, Switzerland and other countries, this industry needs significant government support right now, until business picks up. We all hope that business picks up in the airline industry. Only time will tell.

Working on security is a good example. I support the Minister of Finance with respect to the Government of Canada's investments in security.

The problem is that we did not do enough before September 11. This is why we now have to invest so massively in security. We did not do it before. In 1987 the government decided to move the RCMP out of all Canadian airports. The RCMP was responsible for monitoring and supervising security at airports. It is not just the Liberal government that made this type of decision. That decision was made by the Conservative government and was supported by the current Liberal government. Why? For reasons of economy.

The government delegated to so-called non-profit organizations the responsibility of managing and administering some of the duties relating to security at airports.

Today we are seeing some of the results of that decision. There has not been much investment. Instead, cuts were made. The government tried to transfer the burden of security to airline companies which, over the past 20 years, have undergone major changes, including bankruptcies and the merging of Canadian Airlines International and Air Canada. Meanwhile, it was asking airlines to pay for security.

It did so by investing as little as possible. Since 1987 Transport Canada has been responsible for security at airports. This is a civilian agency which over the past 15 years has been much busier dealing with disputes about the costs to airline companies compared to the services provided by non-profit organizations set up by the Government of Canada to transfer its responsibility. They tried to make it as inexpensive as possible and now we can see the results.

Today we are being forced to make massive investments and the Liberal government is now afraid that it will not have enough money, for the simple reason that we do not know exactly how much the security bill will cost. In the meantime, we are not investing in the airline industry, we are saving our pennies to invest in security and protect passengers, users and all Canadian.

This is a choice we as a society made, and today the airline industry is paying the price. The federal Liberal government does not want to invest like the Americans have done. Once again, I thought the minister's statement was quite frank when he said that the Americans had provided massive support for the airline industry, $5 billion in direct assistance, $10 billion in loan guarantees; $15 billion in all.

Switzerland made a choice, following Swissair's filing for protection under the bankruptcy act, when it decided to invest massively, with the purchase of 38% of the shares of Crossair, which will take over from Swissair in January. So, it is a societal choice.

In Canada, all that is being promised, all that is being offered to employees in the airline industry, which supports the aviation industry, airplane manufacturers, et cetera, is Bill C-38. The world's leading companies in aviation and aeronautics are here, there are manufacturers and companies that produce parts, and all that we can promise them today is Bill C-38.

We agree that individuals should be able to have more than a 15% control of shares if they want to. If this finally allowed a major investor to control Air Canada's board of directors and try to jump start the company and get it on track, this is a societal choice that the government of Canada has made.

We must think about the workers in the airline industry, in all the companies, and not just the five major ones. There are regional companies as well. This afternoon, Air Alma was mentioned. There is Air Inuit and all the other regional carriers, which were hit with the reduction in air traffic across Canada and around the world. They are not being helped by the measures the minister announced yesterday.

This afternoon in oral question period, the minister told us candidly that revitalizing the major companies was likely to give the smaller regional carriers a boost. This represents a choice not to support the regional companies, which are often family operations, and letting them go adrift. When they hit really hard times and are within inches of seeking bankruptcy protection the government might agree to guarantee loans for them, if things are really going bad.

No plan is in place to help the airline industry. They will deal with things piecemeal, day by day. They put out fires. That is how security was dealt with. When problems arise, they deal with them. Otherwise, they try to save as much as possible in security. This is the way they have operated since 1987.

They are making massive investments because there is a security problem but the passengers on the airlines are paying the cost in Canada. Today they have nothing more to sink their teeth into. They have a bill that will enable private investors to participate more in Air Canada in an attempt to revive it.

I hope and we will demand that the context in which today's Air Canada was established will be maintained. In other words, Canada and Quebec need a strong airline that respects travellers' rights, that serves the cities and the regions and that uses French in the air, for both founding peoples.

Anti-Terrorism Legislation

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

Mr. Speaker, recent public comments from certain cabinet ministers showed a real concern for possible civil liberty infringements found in Bill C-36. There is reason to fear that excessive party discipline may stifle contrary opinions from within the Liberal ranks.

In these uncertain and challenging times, Liberal members of parliament should be free to speak up without reprisals from the Prime Minister.

Will the Prime Minister commit today to allowing for free votes both in the House and in committee on this extremely important legislation?

Supply

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that fits in with what I said when I spoke on Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism act.

I said then that the money the government was promising today goes only for military sanctions. No money is provided to fight destitution and poverty, the root causes of this war. As long as there is destitution and poverty, the freedom that we are advocating will never be, and the war which is raging now will never cease.

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to hear such comments but, as I said earlier, we need more than words on the part of the government, we need action.

Allow me to read the text of the motion once again so members can understand that humanitarian aid is not frivolous but is necessary and vital:

That this House calls upon the Parliament to review its international aid policy with a view to substantially increasing the funds available to Canadian humanitarian aid, particularly in the context of the military interventions in Afghanistan, and to increasing the level of its aid for development to 0.7 % of GDP, as recommenced by the United Nations.

I also wish to quote paragraph 1 of the Vienna declaration and program of action on the occasion of the World Conference on Human Rights of 1993:

Human rights and fundamental freedoms are the birthright of all human beings; their promotion and protection are the first responsibility of Governments.

It has been several years since the protection and promotion of fundamental needs of human beings were reaffirmed as the responsibility of governments but unfortunately the government has done very little in this regard. This is unacceptable.

The idea of allocating 0.7% of GDP to international aid was first raised in 1969. However, this principle was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations only in 1990. At that time, Canada voted in favour of this principle. Since then, our country's contribution, far from reaching this objective, has been reduced, from 0.48% in 1990 to 0.25% today. This is totally unacceptable. It is therefore easy to conclude that there is a wide gap between the government's intentions and its actions.

This is all the more shocking when we remember that the Prime Minister himself said in this House, on April 30, 2001, that our aid to developing countries would continue to rise. What actually did happen? The opposite, as we have just seen.

The Prime Minister also said that Canada as a country is among the best positioned to make rich countries aware of the needs of poorer countries. When will Canada itself become more aware?

There is a real concern in the country about the situation of refugees. The situation of the Afghan refugees is really tragic and something has to be done immediately. Military support is not enough in the current context. We have to ensure that innocent people are not paying for what their government has been doing, particularly because of the events that unite us in this fight against terrorism. This is in essence what Kofi Annan said in his September 27 press conference at the UN headquarters.

The United Nations takes the issue very seriously and we should do the same. We have a responsibility to help the UN, as we promised to do more than 10 years ago. We have to keep our engagement to offer humanitarian aid of 0.7% of GDP. What more evidence do we need?

The United Nations should lead the diplomatic, political and, above all, humanitarian actions since it is in a better position to evaluate the consequences of this crisis and not only the military actions.

And what is this crisis all about? There is a continuous influx of Afghan refugees in the neighbouring countries, in the wake of the military strikes. Over 2,000 Afghan refugees gathered at the Iranian border in the last couple of days, for a total of 4,000 refugees in this camp alone. The United Nations high commission for refugees is concerned for their security.

The high commission also fears that the Taliban will recruit within refugee camps. There are also grounds to believe that over 300,000 refugees are massing at the Pakistan border to escape the bombings, adding to the numbers already there.

It is worthy of note that, even before the military strikes, the Afghans were the largest refugee group in the world, surpassing by far those from Iraq, Burundi or Sierra Leone. The Afghan people are therefore in urgent need of our assistance, because the situation is only getting worse.

What are we to do? This is what the Bloc Quebecois is proposing. In the absence of any clear federal policy on bilateral development assistance provided directly to foreign governments, it would be appropriate to put in place a specific plan aimed at attaining the objective of 0.7% of GDP, the target set by the UN.

Second, such a bilateral policy would ensure that funds are not misappropriated by regimes in which corruption is systematic.

Third, in the short term, we propose the injection of an additional $3 billion into international humanitarian aid.

Fourth, it is urgent to provide a positive response to the request for monetary aid from United Nations secretary general Kofi Annan, for $US 585 million to deal with the Afghan crisis. It is unacceptable that Canada has so far contributed only $16 million for all humanitarian organizations. Let us keep in mind that this is the $16 million that had already been announced, not an additional $16 million. It is still the same amount. This is totally unacceptable.

Fifth, in the long term, the Bloc Quebecois believes that the root causes of the scourge of terrorism must be eliminated: poverty, despair and war. These are the real issues behind any conflict that leaves countless innocent victims in its wake.

Sixth, we must review our military objectives because destroying the organization of Osama bin Laden will merely eliminate the threat it represents. It will not eliminate terrorism, which will exist for as long as abject poverty continues to exist.

Seventh, the Bloc Quebecois is of the opinion that the federal government must review its foreign policy, which emphasizes the commercial aspect of international relations. One must realize that human rights also need to be taken into consideration.

The Bloc Quebecois demands that the federal government attain the 0.7% of GDP objective, as recommended by the Association québécoise des organismes de coopération internationale, the Canadian Council for International Cooperation and the North-South Institute. These are all organizations which can see the results of this crisis and bear witness to it.

As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, governments are mainly responsible for protecting the rights and freedoms of any human being. Canada, which boasts about being a rich and privileged country always willing to help poorer countries, has a duty and an obligation to take concrete financial measures in this regard.

The Bloc Quebecois proposes concrete and feasible solutions. Now it is up to the federal government to take action to honour the commitment it made 10 years ago to Quebecers, to Canadians and above all to Afghan refugees.

Not long ago, during the debate on Bill C-36, I said that I hoped the funds allocated for the fight against terrorism would not be used only for sanctions but also to fight poverty, which would help solve the terrorism problem.

Today we have an opportunity to pursue this discussion and to see to it that our words are supported by concrete actions. Bombs are not enough to curb terrorism. We also need to provide support to the innocent population and to take concrete steps within the country.

The Bloc Quebecois proposes short and long term solutions. Let us not kid ourselves, terrorism will continue to have a hold on disadvantaged nations as long as the root causes of this scourge exist and these nations remain without a voice to express their feeling of helplessness.

It is incumbent upon us to give them the tools they need to advance toward democracy, and that is what the Bloc Quebecois is proposing.

Privilege

[John Reynolds, Canadian Alliance, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege to charge the Minister of Transport with contempt. The minister has brought the authority and dignity of the House into question and has breached the new procedure that was established by the adoption of the first report of the modernization committee.

On Thursday, October 25, while the House was in session, the minister held a press conference to announce a $75 million bailout for Canada 3000. While this brand of disrespect is not uncommon for the Liberal government, I believe that this is the first time that such an act has occurred since the adoption of the first report of the modernization committee. At page 4 of that report the committee states:

Concerns have been expressed that government announcements, regarding legislation or policies, are increasingly made outside the House of Commons. While this is by no means a recent phenomenon, it continues to be a source of concern. The Committee is recommending two initiatives to address it.

First, it is important that more ministerial statements and announcements be made in the House of Commons. In particular, topical developments, or foreseeable policy decisions, should be made first—or, at least, concurrently—in the chamber. Ministers, and their departments, need to be encouraged to make use of the forum provided by the House of Commons. Not only will this enhance the pre-eminence of Parliament, but it will also reiterate the legislative underpinning for governmental decisions.

The committee recommended that the government make greater use of ministerial statements in the Chamber and that the House leaders be advised in advance of these statements.

I was not advised of this announcement. When I stood in the House on Thursday and asked the Thursday question, the government House leader had the opportunity right there and then, but failed to do so.

There was no reason why the Minister of Transport could not have advised the opposition and there were no procedural difficulties preventing the Minister of Transport from making his announcement in the House. I am certain that all parties would have extended every courtesy to the minister if he had chosen to respect the House and make his announcement here.

It is important to know that the House adjourned early on that day for lack of business. It adjourned early last Monday and Friday and it adjourned early on Friday, October 19, and on Monday, October 22, so wherein lies the problem with debating these issues on the floor of the House? A $75 million bailout is no small change. Where does the minister think the authority to spend the $75 million comes from?

The government and its departments are continuously making a habit of mocking the parliamentary system in this manner. We have had the deliberate leaking to the media of contents of Bill C-15 and, more recently, of the anti-terrorism bill, Bill C-36.

One of the reasons the modernization committee felt it necessary to address the issue was that in the last two parliaments the government got away with mocking the legislative process at every turn, belittling the role of members of parliament. I will cite a few of the more serious examples.

On Thursday, October 23, 1997, the government announced that provincial and federal governments had constituted a nominating committee to nominate candidates for the new Canada pension plan investment board. The nominating committee was provided for under subclause 10(2) of Bill C-2. The House had not yet adopted Bill C-2.

On January 21, 1998, the minister responsible for the wheat board met in Regina to discuss the rules for the election of directors to the Canadian Wheat Board's board of directors, as proposed in Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act. Substantial amendments to Bill C-4 tabled at report stage by opposition members were scheduled for debate in the House. While the House debated how many directors should be farmer elected versus being government appointees, the minister was holding meetings as though the bill was already law.

When the Canadian millennium scholarship fund was being established, a published article in the Toronto Star announced that Yves Landry had been named as the head of the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation. Mr. Landry was quoted as saying “I am only one member of the board and my job is to be a facilitator”. There was no legislation before the House setting up the foundation, nor had the budget announcement allocating $2.5 billion in revenue to the foundation been adopted.

The Minister for International Trade announced on March 30, 1998, the establishment of a Canada-China interparliamentary group. At that time, the House had not set up a Canada-China interparliamentary group.

Finally, the date of the last budget that was delivered in the House, so long ago we have probably forgotten, was announced by the Prime Minister outside the House.

Each disrespectful act we allow to stand unchallenged becomes a precedent that serves afterwards to justify more acts of disrespect. The modernization committee recognized this and felt it necessary to make a statement.

The adoption of this report outlined what standard the House expected from ministers in this regard.

On page 119 of Erskine May there is a reference regarding a select committee that was appointed to inquire into the conduct and activities of members and to consider whether any such conduct or activities amounted to a contempt of the House and whether any such activities were:

--conduct...inconsistent with the standards the House was entitled to expect from its Members.

The minister cannot claim ignorance because the House pronounced itself on this issue through the adoption of the modernization committee report. When the Minister of Transport made his announcement outside the House on Thursday, October 25 while there was still an opportunity to make it inside, his conduct was clearly inconsistent with the standards the House was entitled to expect from him. As a consequence the minister is in contempt of the House.

The other related parliamentary tradition that the government likes to forget about is the issue of and respect for the doctrine of ministerial responsibility.

The Minister of Transport and the rest of his colleagues, and particularly the Minister of Justice, should review the definition of ministerial responsibility from page 63 of the 22nd edition of Erskine May. It states:

—ministers have a duty to Parliament to account, and be held to account, for the policies, decisions and actions of their departments...it is of paramount importance that ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament—

Where can we find the truthful and accurate information regarding the decision to hand out $75 million to Canada 3000? Not in Hansard of Thursday, October 25. Where it was found was in the Globe and Mail of October 26.

I am beginning to think that being held in contempt in the House is of little concern to the government. Let us look at the example of the Minister of Justice who was held in contempt for leaking to the media the contents of Bill C-15.

When I appeared before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to review another charge of contempt involving the minister, I pointed out that we no longer respect, to the same degree as in the past, the principle that ministers have a duty to parliament to account and to be held to account for the policies, decisions and actions of their departments.

I cited the example from 1976 involving the Hon. André Ouellet, the then minister of consumer and corporate affairs. Mr. Ouellet made a comment on the acquittal by Mr. Justice Mackay of the sugar companies accused of forming cartels and combines. As a result, Mr. Justice Mackay cited him for contempt of court. He was found guilty of the charge and resigned his cabinet post over the incident.

A charge of contempt by the House should be considered just as serious, if not more serious, as a contempt charge in a court. Unfortunately the Minister of Justice chose not to take responsibility in the time honoured tradition of ministerial accountability, as did Mr. Ouellet.

Getting back to this case, I will conclude my remarks by saying that had I had an opportunity to respond to this announcement by the Minister of Transport I might have asked the minister why he can justify giving Canada 3000 $75 million but cannot spend one dime on the softwood lumber industry that lost millions of dollars over a trade dispute with the United States. Thousands of people are out of work as a result and thousands more are expected to lose their jobs.

Also, what about the farmers who suffered through this summer's drought?

These are some of the questions we might have asked if the minister had given us an opportunity, but we did not. The minister might want to talk about timing, about how the House was not sitting. It was not sitting because the government chose not to have it sitting. It adjourned early. We have adjourned early too many days over the last little while.

Certainly I saw the minister on television that night at 7 p.m. The House adjourned early,and I cannot remember if it was 3 p.m. or 4 p.m., but surely he must have made the decision earlier in the day. He could have spoken to the government House leader and made sure it was put on the agenda so that we could have done it in the House and it could have been done properly.

Mr. Speaker, if you find that we have a case of privilege, I am prepared to move the proper motion.

Anti-terrorism Legislation

[Reed Elley, Canadian Alliance, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in light of the concerns of some Canadians about civil liberties, some groups have called for exemptions from Bill C-36.

Could either the minister of Indian affairs or the justice minister tell us whether native people across Canada will be exempted from the provisions of Bill C-36 as some of their leaders are calling for? A simple yes or no would suffice.

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, we do not believe that the definition as found in Bill C-36 provides any unnecessary or unreasonable impediments to prosecutors. We see those qualifiers as an important part of the definition to ensure we are not sweeping up organizations, groups and individuals who should not be included.