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

Point of Order

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Chatham--Kent Essex.

I was a little surprised to read the content of today's motion because anyone who says that the government does not have a national security policy either has not been paying attention to the actions taken by the government over the past six months or just plain does not know what they are talking about.

We know that Canadians have been paying attention because they have voiced strongly and clearly their consistent approval of the government's actions since September 11.

The government's response to the tragic events of September 11 reflects the principles of our national security policy. Our response was immediate and it was co-ordinated. It was driven by the continued need to ensure the national and economic security of Canadians.

Canadian response to September 11 was immediate. About 250 flights and 33,000 airline passengers were diverted from U.S. destinations to Canadian airports. Officials from the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, Citizenship and Immigration Canada and the RCMP went on a heightened state of alert at all border points. Security and law enforcement agencies went into a full court press to investigate terrorism in co-operation with their U.S. counterparts. Ships were put to sea, aircraft was put on alert, and the military was put on standby.

On October 1 the Prime Minister established the ad hoc committee of ministers on public security and anti-terrorism. This committee was tasked with ensuring and building, where necessary, a rapid and co-ordinated response to the new threat environment. Some of the key elements that have been advanced include the following: identifying an initial programming package for this current fiscal year of $280 million for security, intelligence and law enforcement departments and agencies to heighten border security and to undertake initiatives to enhance the security of Canadians; passage of the anti-terrorism act, Bill C-36, to put the communications and security establishment on a legislative footing with a mandate to collect intelligence on international terrorism; and the tabling of Bill C-42, the public safety act, primarily aimed at implementing international conventions on controlling biological weapons and enhancing air transportation security.

The 2001 budget clearly identified the two interrelated challenges which are to maintain a strong and stable economy and to protect Canadians.

These goals have been partly achieved by strengthening personal and economic security and by keeping terrorists out of the country and maintaining an open and efficient border.

In all, the budget has committed a total of $7.7 billion over the next five years to enhance the security of Canadians by increasing resources to our intelligence and police agencies, by enhancing screening of new entrants to Canada and by strengthening air security.

Moreover, $1.2 billion will be invested in border security, not only to address the concerns about security but also to improve long term economic opportunities by maintaining a more open and efficient border between Canada and the United States.

Of the more than $1.2 billion to be invested in border infrastructures, $646 million will be used to enhance security at the border and facilitate the movement of people and goods between Canada and the United States.

In particular, the focus of the budget is on: new technology to help Canada Customs and Revenue Agency facilitate the passage of goods and people at border crossing points; new Canadian multi-agency integrated border enforcement teams to co-ordinate intelligence and enforcement efforts along the Canada-U.S. border; advanced information sharing technology to help customs officers screen travellers arriving at airports and other border entry points; better equipment for detecting explosives, firearms and other dangers without delaying the flow of legitimate commerce and tourism; and new secure Internet-based technology to ease customs compliance for small business.

We must remember however that our concern for public security is matched by and intrinsically linked with our concern for economic security.

With almost half of our GDP dependent on access to the U.S. market, it is imperative that our shared border be kept open, even as we make it more secure. Most people are aware that Canada and the United States have been working on the smart border action plan since December 2001. My U.S. counterpart on this initiative, Governor Tom Ridge, has stated:

This Smart Border declaration is an agreement between two independent sovereign nations to work together--to solve problems of mutual interest that affect the security and safety, as well as the economic well-being of the citizens in each country.

These issues however are not new. We did not discover border security and border management on September 11. It is an integral part of the government to government relationship that operates every day in hundreds of ways. In fact, Canada and the U.S. share the most extensive bilateral co-operation in the world focused on managing our borders and mutual security.

The action plan that Governor Ridge and I agreed to on December 12 recognizes that link between public and economic security. We cannot adequately protect our citizens if our economies are barricaded. Likewise, our economies cannot function if our citizens do not have confidence in their security. The smart border discussions, which are frequent and productive, build on a long history of border co-operation between Canada and the United States.

All steps that we have undertaken, both before and after September 11, recognize that the guiding principles for a 21st century border include streamlining and harmonizing border policies and management, expanding co-operation at and beyond the border and collaborating on common threats outside of Canada and the United States.

They demonstrate our shared belief that the border should support open trade and travel while defending its people and economies against threats to the social and economic well-being of both countries. We are developing risk management solutions that facilitate the flow of low risk people and goods while concentrating greater resources on flows that may pose a threat to our two countries.

Last Friday in Washington, D.C., Governor Ridge and I announced the expansion of NEXUS, the risk management system for processing travellers. Our customs agencies are working out the details of a similar system for commercial goods.

These initiatives will benefit from a new $600 million program to improve the infrastructure, including highways, commercial vehicle processing centres and the technology needed at the major entry points.

This program will be implemented with the cooperation of public and private partners from both sides of the border.

September 11 showed us that even in an age of globalization we need to remain vigilant that our borders continue to meet our security needs while allowing the growing transborder trade to move swiftly and efficiently.

The smart border that we are building with the United States through strategic planning, risk management and co-ordinated infrastructure will serve as a model to the world. Combined with the new security measures that we have introduced in legislation and in the budget, our border innovations demonstrate that the government is fulfilling its responsibility to protect the security of Canadians and the open economy upon which our way of life depends.

Supply

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on behalf of the NDP caucus today.

I begin by saying, with respect to the controversy earlier today about whether or not this motion by the Conservative Party should be votable, that one wonders whether or not, as someone who contests whether or not the motion should be votable, we will in fact actually vote.

However the matter before us is the motion and, I would say, without prejudice to whether or not we should be voting on it, that the motion is far too general to elicit the kind of support that I think perhaps the member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough might have been looking for from all opposition parties.

While there are certainly things for which we would want to be critical of the government and criticisms that we might well share with the member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough, there might be other criticisms that we do not share. The member cannot simply ask us to sign on to a general condemnation of the government for its failure to implement a national security policy to address the broad range of security issues when we do not know the list of issues that the member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough wants the government to address. I realize that he outlined some of those things in his speech but the motion, as it reads and if it were to be passed or, for that matter, approved by any party or individual, would be open to interpretations.

For instance, the NDP was critical of the government, not for its failure to implement a particular security policy when it came to anti-terrorism legislation but for, in our judgment, going too far when it came to anti-terrorism legislation. Therefore it would be difficult for us to support the motion because it seems to imply that, with respect to a broad range of issues having to do with security, the government has not gone far enough.

When Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism legislation, was before the House, one of our criticisms was that we felt the government had gone too far. We also felt that way with respect to Bill C-35 and we feel that way with respect to Bill C-42, which now seems to be on the back burner but which is nevertheless still on the order paper. Is it the position of the Progressive Conservative Party that Bill C-42 is part of the government's failure, that it does not go far enough?

These are all the kinds of interpretations that could be attached to support this particular motion because it is in fact so general. It is one of the reasons why I do not see how we could support this particular motion as it stands.

Because it has come up in debate, is the motion intended to refer in some codified way to the Senate report on security? If that is the case, perhaps a motion saying that we adopt the recommendations of the recent Senate committee on security would have been in order. At least we then could have debated what was in that particular report.

Having listened to the debate a bit today, it seemed to me from time to time that we were vicariously debating the report that was brought forward in the Senate with respect to security. The allusion in the motion to ports of entry and borders, for instance, is clearly a reference to a subject matter of concern that the Senate committee report addressed itself to.

Having said that, with respect to ports and security matters having to do with ports, I would like to put on the record once again that the NDP felt at the time and feels still that the privatization of ports and the elimination of the national harbour police were serious mistakes.

Addressing whatever security concerns there may be with respect to our ports would be to reinstitute a police force dedicated to port security, instead of having the municipal police and the RCMP trying to do a job that in our judgment should be done by a police force dedicated to that particular purpose.

To me, it always makes sense to have people who are vocationally attached to a particular task. I think that is the way the members of the national harbour police worked when they were in existence. They were not municipal police who might be looking after port security this year, looking after the vice squad next year and looking after something else the next year. Their job was port security and they were there for the long haul.

However it has become a fad in the last 10 to 20 years to do away with dedicated services of any kind and to turn everything over to--I am not sure what to call it, but nobody ever does anything for the long haul any more. They are just in there for the duration of a contract when things are privatized, or in the case of what we are talking about here in terms of ports police, we do not have a police force dedicated to port security but we have a number of police officers in various police forces who are assigned from time to time to port security. This is not a criticism of them. They are put in a very difficult position and, as the member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough and others have said and quite rightly, are often asked to do the job without adequate resources.

We cannot have security on the cheap. Yet in some ways we are reaping now what was sown over the last 10, 15, 20 years whereby governments, through various public policy initiatives, generally in the way of deregulation, privatization, contracting out and doing away with things that were directly funded by government, tried to do things on the cheap that they used to do in a dedicated way and they used to do by way of paying whatever it cost to get the job done and to have the job done well.

Now the chickens are coming home to roost. It was fine as long as, to put the obvious, everything was fine, but now that things are not fine we find that there are all kinds of holes in the system.

It will not do, while we are alluding to the Senate report, to impugn the integrity of a lot of people who work at the ports.

There seems to be an underlying theme in the Senate report that is of concern to us and I think of concern to many others that somehow its the workers in the ports who are the problem.

A very good article in the Province by Christina Montgomery talks about some of the things wrong with the Senate report. She highlights, for instance, the disbandonment of the ports police which I have already mentioned. She also takes issue with the way in which the report implies that somehow its the unions that are at fault for whatever security problems there may be at our ports. I would like to put that on the record.

Returning to the matter of resources, the fact is that a lot of our ports are underpoliced. Whether we return to a national harbour police, a national ports police or however we do it, we will need a lot more resources at our ports, along the borders. Others have spoken of the longest undefended border. It is undefended and that is part of the problem. It is undefended from a lot of things.

I do not, and I do not think anybody does, want to see the border become a difficult place for ordinary Canadians and Americans to go back and forth and for commerce to transpire. The fact is that we have been under-resourcing our security personnel wherever we find them, whether we find them at customs, in the ports, in the RCMP or wherever Canadians are called upon to engage in security tasks for the public there has been a pattern of underfunding and under-resourcing these tasks for a long time and it is coming home to roost.

If the government is serious about security, I would urge it to get serious about funding security. Its only major initiative so far, which I think was wrong, has been to bring in the anti-terrorism legislation which I think, in some respects, goes beyond targeting terrorists to making it possible to make life miserable for legitimate, democratic dissent in this country.

A couple of weeks ago I had an opportunity to meet at a forum with the United Steelworkers of America which has many thousands of members in the security industry. The United Steelworkers were saying to the Deputy Prime Minister, who is in charge of security, that they wanted to sit down and talk about the security industry and talk about national standards for training, certification and pay.

One of the problems in the security industry, particularly as it pertains to the private security industry which guards much of our infrastructure, which we are now told we should be worried about in terms of possible terrorist attacks, is that a lot of that infrastructure is provided on a private for profit basis. It is also not necessarily the best kind of security that we could ask for. People in the security industry know that. They would like to see higher standards, better training and the kind of pay that would create in that industry people who would be dedicated to that particular task. If they were paid well enough they would stay at it and do the job properly. They would not feel that they had to move on because of an offer of a better paying job somewhere else.

All these things are on our mind as we reflect upon the Tory motion that we have here today. We cannot support the motion as it is. We reiterate our contention that part of the solution for addressing the security problems at our ports is the reintroduction of a dedicated national harbours or ports police.

We agree with others who say that the resources are a great part of the problem and that there is a need for the government to make sure that our police and security forces, in the broadest possible sense of the word, have the resources to do the job that they are being asked to do.

The NDP cannot support the motion because we find it to be too general. We do not want to condemn the government holus-bolus or support the government holus-bolus on this. It has done some things right and some things wrong. Simply to have a motion which condemns the government without saying what it is it is being condemned for does not provide the opportunity for the kind of detailed debate that we would like to have in the House.

I remind hon. members that even though they might not have supported the NDP motion during the week before we broke, there were 12 things that we thought the government should be doing. Members could get up and disagree with those 12 things but they knew what we were talking about. We do not have a similar kind of motion before us here today.

With respect to the final phrase in the motion calling “on the government to reassert Parliament's relevance in these and other public policy issues”, I am not entirely sure what the member means here. If this is a general call for parliamentary reform, which would restore parliament's relevance in these and other public issues, of course we support that. I would say that as an individual member of parliament I have supported this kind of effort all the time I have been here.

However I am not sure whether this final phrase was supposed to entice people to vote for the rest of the motion, in spite of the fact that it had so little content, out of our love for parliamentary reform, or what effect it was supposed to have on us. In any event, we certainly would like to see parliament's relevance reasserted in these and other public policy issues.

With all due respect to the members of the PC/DRC coalition who are in the House now, and I know none of them were here when what I am about to speak of happened. One of the reasons why parliament suffers from a lack of relevance in these and other public policy issues is because of what was done to parliament between 1984 and 1993 when the Conservatives were in power.

Much of what we now experience in opposition, the frustration and powerlessness, the feeling of being left out of decisions taken in the Prime Minister's Office and elsewhere, a lot of these trends, if not begun, were solidified and consolidated under the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party between 1984 and 1993.

What is of course tragic, ironic and, in the final analysis, despicable is that the party that in its days as official opposition that opposed these measures has now been in power for nine years and has done absolutely nothing to undo the damage that it so loudly protested at that time.

I certainly join with members of the PC/DRC in calling once again on another government, in another time, in the same place, to reassert parliament's relevance in these and other public policy issues.

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

Madam Speaker, precisely, this may be where the whole problem lies. The hon. member who just spoke cannot give me the exact definition of a national security policy. Since he cannot provide that definition, this means that all members in this House present their party's view or their collective view.

Earlier, I mentioned that the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford spoke at length on the registry of sexual offenders. Another one will deal at length on another issue, while another yet will say that Bill C-36 or Bill C-42, which I tried to define earlier, did not go far enough. As for us, we say that the government went too far.

Until we have a definition of security policy, it is hard for us to give our support. I could be asked “Do you agree to change the national defence policy?” This is not in the motion, but I could include it, because it is indeed a security policy. I would say “Yes, I agree on a new white paper, because the existing national defence white paper is based on the 1994 white paper”. We are now in 2002 and the situation has evolved extremely quickly, as evidenced by the events of September 11. We could never have imagined what happened. Ours was a typical national defence strategy, and it was based on previous wars.

If the motion said that, I would support it. But we do not know what it says. I could also interpret it and say “The Minister of Foreign Affairs should also align his policy with that of national defence, so as to know how to intervene in various existing conflicts”. This is my personal interpretation, based on a part of the motion that is vague enough to allow everyone to give it their own interpretation.

Indeed, the problem is that we cannot support such a broad interpretation. The motion should be much more specific. Again, this is why we cannot support it.

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

Madam Speaker, first I would like to advise the House that I am pleased to share my time with my hon. colleague, the member for Argenteuil--Papineau--Mirabel. I would also like to add that I will not be touching on the discussions that took place this morning regarding procedural issues, as this was debated for one hour. In my opinion, the Speaker of the House of Commons has quite a hot potato to deal with. It will be interesting now to see how he will get rid of it.

There has been much debate about the proposal before us. As far as we are concerned, there is a problem with the wording of the motion. The comments made my colleague from Langley--Abbotsford only serve to demonstrate this fact. He was already quite happy to broaden the scope of this motion, particularly when it comes to implementing a national security policy.

Obviously the motion refers to areas where we agree that actions must be taken, whether it be at ports, borders—I will comment on this briefly—and in particular, the relevance of Parliament in these matters. However, when it comes to a national security policy, this is quite different in scope, and this scope is interpreted in almost individual terms. Everyone has their own ideas about where action should be taken. As I mentioned, my colleague from Langley--Abbotsford certainly does, and this is what concerns us.

Yesterday we remembered the events of September 11; it was six months ago to the day. Immediately after the events, the Bloc Quebecois took a very responsible attitude by telling the government, “We will support you”. This was done in a general manner. We said, “We would not, however, accept too many restrictions on the freedoms of Quebecers and Canadians, because if this were to occur, if we get to the point where we are violating freedoms, the terrorists will have won”.

So when the government introduced the first bills in response, we mostly supported them at first and second reading. However, we reached the point where we felt that the government crossed the line that must not be crossed, the line that violated the rights and freedoms of Quebecers and Canadians.

As an example, there is Bill C-36, the famous anti-terrorism bill. There are all sorts of things concerning human rights, the protection of privacy and access to information, where, in our opinion, people's rights were trampled on.

Consequently, we wanted to put forward important clauses ensuring that there would be a time limit. Everybody remembers the “sunset clause”; it was said that there ought to be a review after three years. Unfortunately, the government did not listen to us. It brought in a so-called sunset clause, which is not really one. It was made meaningless because it applies only to two things: detention and another concept that is minor to us. The government should have done more, in our opinion.

The same thing applies to the bill's definition of terrorist activity. Terrorist activity was very broadly defined, and that concerned us, because we believe that anyone could be considered a terrorist, even a person who throws a rock at a police officer during a demonstration. Some Liberal members had stretched the concept to such an extent. We believed that it was going too far. So we voted against the bill at third reading.

It is the same thing with Bill C-42, the infamous omnibus bill that amended 20 pieces of legislation. We had a lot to say about military security zones, because we know what this means. The War Measures Act had a terrible impact on Quebecers, and we do not want any bill to give the government the go ahead to inflict such hardship on the public again.

So, Bill C-42, the omnibus bill amending 20 pieces of legislation, is just another example I wanted to give concerning military security zones. We were also afraid that many other provisions in that bill would violate the rights and freedoms of Quebecers and Canadians.

The motion brought forward by our friends from the PC/DR Coalition is not totally negative. I am also concerned about the security at our ports and harbours. In fact, a Senate committee has released an excellent report describing their concerns about this issue. I think security in this area should be reinforced.

Will voting on this motion, as it stands today, automatically lead to more severe measures? I am not sure about that. I have more bad than good to say about this motion. However, I wish to remain positive and tell my friends from the PC/DR Coalition that they did raise some very interesting issues. However, we still have problems with the way the motion was drafted.

The motion also mentions borders. Only yesterday, I gave an interview to TVA because, in my region, we are very concerned. My riding borders on Vermont and the State of New York.

We have learned that, after a very arbitrary test, a number of regular customs officers who had always received excellent appraisal reports were let go and replaced by students. I want it known that I have nothing against the students, but the government seems to be taking a penny wise and pound foolish approach right now, to the detriment of security.

Under the legislation, the people laid off had been given increased powers; they could use pepper spray and other means to stop terrorists. They could use handcuffs or a baton, which the students cannot. By replacing these customs officers with students, the government is saving approximately $10 per person an hour because they were paid $20 an hour. When security is ignored, there is a problem. That is the point raised in our colleague's motion. But unfortunately I do not think that the positive aspects are enough to offset the problems with the motion's wording.

It is the same when it comes to parliament's relevance. It is very clever to include it in the motion because, in fact, Bloc Quebecois members have been saying that the government is not transparent enough. Furthermore, only yesterday, I told a Journal de Montréal journalist that I had learned more in a three hour briefing session with the Americans in Tampa Bay last month than during the entire period following the September 11 attacks.

The Americans assembled parliamentarians, explained to them where the special force was, how many were taking part in it, and what operations were next. We do not have that here. Parliament is kept in the dark. When I say parliament, I do not mean the cabinet; I mean opposition members and Liberal backbenchers. They do not know what is going on, except when they attend a briefing such as that given by the National Defence chief of staff last week, at which he explained in very vague terms what is happening.

This is deplorable. Things have gotten to the point that when the Minister of National Defence announces that he is going to send troops somewhere, we are told: “The troops will be leaving tomorrow, but tomorrow night you will have a chance to discuss this in the House because we are going to hold a take-note debate at that time”. This is a new label for empty debating with no opportunity to vote.

It seems to me that, when issues as important as deploying troops are concerned, it is essential for Parliament to be informed, for them to be fully debated, and for members to have the opportunity to vote.

I was elected as an MP in order to speak and to advance my views. Doing so, however, does not just mean speaking out. We also need to be able to rise and announce how we will be voting on behalf of our constituents. This is a rarity, particularly in connection with security matters.

As far as the government is concerned, their culture is still one of secrecy. The Minister of National Defence, along with a small group, has given himself the exclusive right to decide on security, and then to advise us of the decision. We are told after the decision has been made “If you do not like it, you can express your views in a debate that will not lead anywhere because there will be no vote”.

I find our colleague's motion to be a skillful one, but unfortunately as I have said, it is not worded sufficiently clearly as far as implementation of a national policy is concerned, one which underlies all manner of bills that go far beyond this, such as C-36 and C-42. Unfortunately, I must inform my colleagues that we will have to find other ways of solving these problems.

This motion is not going to be the way to do it, because it implies a number of negative impacts as far as restricting the freedoms of Canadians and Quebecers is concerned.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to try to nudge the debate a little closer to the topic. The mover of the motion proposed the motion and we seem to be dealing with all kinds of different topics such as the way the deficit was 5, 10, 15 and 20 years ago, firearms legislation and helicopter purchases.

I remind colleagues, and perhaps the mover of the motion, that the subject is national security generally. The opposition has moved the motion so inevitably it will be rhetorical. Inevitably it will be political and sometimes wilfully blind to some of the facts. However that is the way we operate around here. Our job is to try to contribute things to the debate that will keep us on topic.

National security is very much a challenge of responding to and managing risk. It is pretty clear to everyone that the perceived risk pre-September 11 is different from the risk we see now. Most of the risk we have had to encounter was risk targeted at our American neighbours.

Pre-September 11 these risks did not seem to be targeted directly at Canada, but these days national security is an international item. It has an international dynamic. It is not just domestic. We must work with our partners internationally to deal with managing the risk. When one of our international partners is at risk our legislation and our policy are to assume that we also are at risk and will collaborate with them.

The December 12 announcement of a 30 point action plan by this government and by the government of the U.S.A. reflects the fact that security in North America is pretty much pooled together. That 30 point action plan was not accomplished overnight. It is a wish list that will span out over several years. The 30 point plan became a much shorter 8 point plan, I think it was, by March 8 when our minister met with his U.S. counterpart, Mr. Ridge.

Many things are going on and one of the challenges of responding to security threats is that the actual response by government is not made public necessarily at the time the response is taken. One element of dealing with security is that its elements are not usually made public, at least in an aggressive, press release kind of way.

The March 8 announcement included improvements to our Canada-U.S. border screening operations and a joint program to address the risk of security breaches involving shipping container traffic at our seaports. These joint teams will now be developing action plans for Canadian and U.S. ports across the northern tier of the U.S. or the southern tier of Canada.

They will find problems. They know what they are. The member opposite who moved the motion has referred to the problem of organized crime in more than one of our seaports. It is a fact that police have told us at committees of the House and apparently of the Senate that we do not control container traffic. It is controlled by workers at the ports. Statistically speaking approximately half the workers in some of those ports have criminal records, which does not mean they are not following the rules but it does raise concerns. I for one have concluded that we do not control sufficiently our container traffic coming into our ports. I will not say which one.

We have a serious problem which can only be addressed by government. What we have heard publicly so far from the people who manage the seaports is not accurate. I assume some of us in this place will be engaged in further debate on that.

One of the problems with security matters is that they often get siloed into different subject and ministry areas. The difference among health, policing, customs and military security creates a great challenge for modern government.

We have tried to address it by placing one minister at the cabinet table with an ad hoc committee of relevant ministers. The Americans have tried a different route by using a non-cabinet minister to try to bring things together. There were challenges on both sides of the border. Both sides are working with these challenges and have attempted perhaps to low ball the turf wars that occur between different agencies within government.

Our problems are analogous to the kinds of problems in that regard of our American neighbours. Our response to terrorism includes two pieces of legislation: one passed by the House, Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism bill, and Bill C-42 which is before the House. It will certainly have more debate here. Those are good faith strong attempts, strong responses by the government to deal with legislative weaknesses of which we perhaps were not aware before September 11. The same has happened in many other countries around the world as we try to remediate our domestic legislation to respond to the very real threats out there.

The government reconstituted the national security subcommittee of the justice committee. The phone calls went out within days after September 11. Members of the House will be working on that committee in an attempt to provide focus for the House on the envelope of national security, which I have already said is somewhat segmented, inevitably so, between different ministries and different agencies within government.

In the motion today is what I regard as a silly throwaway comment asking the government to try to make parliament more relevant. It is not the job of the government to make parliament more relevant. It is the job of parliamentarians. Let us please stop asking government, which is several hundred thousand people strong working outside the House, to try to make the House more relevant. This is our job. Anyone in the House who asks some nameless, faceless person in government to help us make the House more relevant is whistling, dreaming.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to enter the debate on national security which remains a key concern for all Canadians I believe. I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Scarborough--Rouge River.

On behalf of the solicitor general, I assure you, Mr. Speaker, and all members of parliament that national security and public safety continue to be the number one priority and the top priority for the Government of Canada.

The Solicitor General of Canada has a leadership role within the Government of Canada for protecting Canadians and helping them to maintain a peaceful and safe society.

Many other ministers of the government, including departments and agencies, are also key partners in this very important area in the fight against terrorism, including my hon. colleagues from justice, CCRA, CIC, DFAIT, national defence, Transport Canada and Health Canada. We all work closely with our federal partners on a daily basis through a variety of informal and formal meetings to ensure that the government's overall public safety strategy is co-ordinated and effective.

The ad hoc ministers' committee on public security and anti-terrorism as well as the deputy ministers' committee on public safety are prime examples of interdepartmental co-ordination.

The portfolio of the Solicitor General of Canada also co-operates with federal, provincial and territorial partners in a number of ways to share information, consult on major initiatives and to reach consensus on proposed criminal justice reforms. These include, for example, ministers responsible for justice, deputy ministers responsible for justice, co-ordinating committees of senior officials and several subcommittees and working groups to examine specific policy issues.

In particular, a new federal-provincial-territorial deputies committee has just been formed to ensure co-ordination among all jurisdictions in their approach to anti-terrorism and public safety issues.

Strong partnerships with stakeholders is vital to the work of the Solicitor General of Canada. We encourage and actively support co-operation with our non-governmental partners, including provincial and municipal police forces, and emergency firstline responders through consultation, information sharing, exchange of expertise and knowledge, training and the provision of resources.

It goes without saying that since September 11 counterterrorism is a top priority for police and security agencies the world over. It is a top priority here at home too for the RCMP, for CSIS and for law enforcement officials across Canada.

The primary role of the Government of Canada is to lead this fight against terrorism at national and international levels. The government is doing so through new legislation and several important initiatives announced in the last two federal budgets.

Since the year 2000, the Government of Canada has dedicated a total of $9.5 billion to public safety and national security, including $7.7 billion in the December 2001 budget. The comprehensive set of measures outlined in budget 2001 are designed to keep Canada safe, keep terrorists out and keep our borders open. To this end, it includes major investments to equip and deploy more intelligence and frontline investigative personnel, improve co-ordination among law enforcement, intelligence and national security agencies, and to boost marine security and safety to the tune of $1.6 million. It also includes improving the screening of immigrants, refugee claimants and visitors to the tune of $1 billion; creating a new air security organization, assigning armed undercover police officers on Canadian aircraft, purchasing explosive detection equipment and enhancing policing to the tune of $2.2 billion; and finally, enhancing border security and improving the infrastructure that supports major border crossings to ensure the legitimate flow of people and goods, which is so important to our economy, to the tune of $1.2 billion.

Furthermore, under Canada's anti-terrorism plan, key federal agencies responsible for public security, such as the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, will receive substantial new funding to enhance their counterterrorism capacity and priorities.

CSIS will receive an additional $334 million over five years which will be used to boost its frontline security intelligence capacity. The RCMP will receive an additional $576 million which will bring new technology on line and put more officers to work on national security matters.

Under Canada's anti-terrorism plan, specific federal support for provinces, territories and municipalities include the establishment of new integrated national security enforcement teams, INSETs, and increased integrated border enforcement teams, IBETs, by the RCMP with provision for the salaries of INSET members seconded from other jurisdictions.

These are all important measures and, while the focus is on counterterrorism, initiatives undertaken on this front have had ripple effects that will benefit organized crime investigations, community policing and policing and law enforcement in general. What these measures do is establish a framework to ensure a high level of public security and safety for Canadians wherever they live in a national security framework.

Federal anti-terrorism initiatives will clearly strengthen the criminal justice system on a national basis. All jurisdictions will benefit from the resulting tools, expertise, new or expanded programs and infrastructure. These benefits will continue over a long period of time.

As a result of the events that took place on September 11, the Government of Canada and the U.S. administration have been more attentive than ever in ensuring security and safety at our joint border. Both countries have formally agreed to co-operate on border security and regional migration issues and have signed a smart border declaration which includes a 30 point action plan to ensure a safe, secure and efficient border.

The goal is to facilitate the movement of legitimate goods and people while preventing terrorists and undesirable individuals from entering Canada or the United States.

The Government of Canada has long realized that the fight against organized crime is not a task it can take on alone. Since the adoption of the joint statement on organized crime in 1998, we have been working very closely with our provincial and territorial counterparts to address this problem.

The national agenda to combat organized crime identifies a series of new legislative initiatives to enhance the investigation and prosecution of organized crime. Bill C-24 was a good first step and an important first step.

The police community told policymakers there was a need to improve legislation and that is exactly what happened and what we did. Bill C-24 will assist in addressing serious problems like biker gangs and other forms of serious crime.

We all know that criminals are making full use of technological advances to facilitate and provide leverage for their crimes. In order to respond effectively, we need to capitalize on the new technological tools available to us.

An excellent example of this is the Canada Public Safety Information Network which is designed to link criminal justice agencies across Canada to allow for better detection and prosecution of offenders. In October 2001, the Solicitor General of Canada announced that $4.9 million in new money would be dedicated in part to enhancing this program.

Furthermore, encryption technology is becoming cheaper, stronger, widely available and easy to use. Criminals and terrorists increasingly use some form of encryption or password protection to secure their communications. That is why the Department of the Solicitor General has implemented an action plan to provide technical solutions and to conduct a comprehensive legislative review.

Here, as with organized crime, the challenge is for our laws to keep pace with the changing face of technology and crime.

The Government of Canada does not take public safety and national security for granted. As I have just outlined, we have introduced numerous initiatives designed to enhance both national security and public safety.

Parliament and parliamentary committees continue to play a vigorous role in this area. We have only to point to parliament's work on Bill C-36, Bill C-24, Bill C-11 and continuing debate regarding Bill C-42 and Bill S-23.

I look forward to the continued input of all parliamentarians as we work together in this very important area. I will conclude by saying that public security and public safety remain a top priority. As a government, along with all Canadians, we need to work in this very important area to ensure that at the end of the day we secure a safe and good place for Canadians wherever they live in this country.

Refugees

[Chuck Cadman, Canadian Alliance, Surrey North, BC]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should make regulations under paragraph 101(1)(e) of the Immigration Act with the effect that people claiming to be refugees pursuant to the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees will not be admitted for consideration of their claim from the following countries: the United States, New Zealand, Australia and all countries that are members of the European Economic Union.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to discuss my private member's Motion No. 422. I would first like to express my disappointment that the motion was deemed non-votable, especially when business can come from the other place without ever having to enter into the lottery and is instantly made votable.

I dare say that public safety and secure borders are more relevant to most Canadians than creating a national horse or setting aside a day in honour of a former prime minister. That is not to suggest that those issues do not have merit. They certainly do, but we must get our priorities straight in this place.

That being said, the motion states:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should make regulations under paragraph 101(1)(e) of the Immigration Act with the effect that people claiming to be refugees pursuant to the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees will not be admitted for consideration of their claim from the following countries: the United States, New Zealand, Australia and all countries that are members of the European Economic Union.

The issue of refugees coming to Canada has been of significant public concern for decades. If average Canadians were asked what they thought about Canada's refugee system we would find they are very proud of the fact that we have assisted tens of thousands of people who are genuinely persecuted in foreign lands. I also think we would hear that people are tired of Canada's generosity being taken advantage of by fraudulent refugee claims.

My motion would virtually eliminate the practice of silent shopping and the use of our refugee system as a back door immigration method. This would help offset public opinion that in one survey says 70% of Canadians agree that many people claming to be refugees are not real refugees.

It is vital for Canada to continue its tradition of helping those less fortunate and I truly believe that. I believe that if Canadians were able to see that only genuine refugees were being admitted those attitudes would greatly change. It is as equally vital that Canadians not feel used. By prescribing certain nations as safe third countries the government would restore a lot of confidence in Canada's refugee system.

Before addressing the motion I would like to congratulate the government for entering into an accord with the United States that would implement one aspect of my motion. It was only shortly after I gave notice of my motion that the former immigration minister announced that Canada and the United States would be entering into a safe third country agreement that would turn back refugee claimants coming from either country.

This is especially significant considering that the majority of asylum seekers come to Canada through the United States by using its visa system as a staging ground to enter Canada for an easy refugee claim. Unfortunately all we have at this point is some talk. We have no agreement yet.

I would now like to address why it is important to list all western democracies that adhere to and are signatories to the United Nations convention on refugees. One immigration policy expert, James Bissett, who spent several years in the civil service, says Canada could reduce bogus claims by 40% if it adopted a safe third country rule across the board. Thus Canada would stop accepting refugees who travel to Canada via the United States or other modern, liberal democracies where they clearly face no threat of persecution.

This is what my motion suggests. Canada is a destination of choice for refugee asylum shoppers because it accepts up to 60% of all claimants compared to 28% in the United States and only 10% in Europe. This rule would force claimants to make their case in the first country they land in rather than the most likely country to accept them.

The member for London North Centre, the Liberal chairman of the all party committee on border security, said the two countries must put a stop to economic migrants who claim refugee status after gaining legal entry into Canada. He said:

If you are coming from a safe third country, that is, the United States, you are not being persecuted and you are in that country, why do you want to make a refugee claim here? We should be able to deport them and send them back to the United States. What the United States wants to do with them is their own problem. It shouldn't become our problem.

What many Canadians do not recognize is how expensive it is to allow people coming from safe third countries to make a claim in Canada. It cost Canadian taxpayers more that $21 million last year just to provide free lawyers for refugee claimants, many of whom entered from the United States after their visitor, work or student visas expired.

The costs do not include welfare and health care spending to accommodate refugee claimants. With both our health and welfare systems strained to the breaking point, it is ridiculous to continue allowing people to come to Canada to make a refugee claim when they could have made that claim in the first country in which that they landed.

Critics of a motion such as mine will say that I am being cold and heartless. That could not be further from the truth. I am very proud of the role Canada plays in assisting people with nowhere else to turn, those who are genuine refugees. It is an unfortunate reality, however, that we have also become the destination of choice for asylum shoppers.

If my motion had been deemed votable and subsequently passed in the House of Commons, the government could have virtually put an end to the practice of asylum shopping and sharply curtailed queue jumping, leaving room for our overtaxed refugee determination system to focus on people truly in need of Canada's assistance.

This of course raises the question of who is in need of Canada's assistance.

Canada expects to receive 45,000 refugee claims by the end of this fiscal year, up from 38,000 last year, of which only 8,000 of the claimants are government sponsored. Are 45,000 claims that are expected to arrive not a truly disproportionate number to the 8,000 that have been pre-screened and known to be genuine refugees long before they came to Canada?

If we did not have so many people constantly showing up at our doorstep, imagine the relief we could provide to refugees in camps around the world where people have no hope of ever finding asylum because they are the poorest of the poor.

The majority of the 45,000 asylum seekers will come through countries where they could make claims but have chosen to come to Canada, most likely because it is widely known that if they make it to Canada they are all but assured of having their claim accepted and if it is rejected, it is also widely understood that one will never get deported.

It is very clear to anyone in the world that Canada does not have the wherewithal, nor perhaps the political will, to deport failed refugee claimants or even dangerous criminals. This point is made very clear by the fact that Canadian immigration officials have no idea where over 27,000 failed refugee claimants are, even though they have been ordered deported.

If the government were to list all the countries that are signatories to the UN convention on refugees, our immigration system could put far more focus on removing undesirables from this country instead of simply losing them and not knowing if they have or have not left the country.

Let me take this one step further. If we had implemented the safe third country strategy in time, we would likely not have had to deal with the likes of Tafari Rennock, a violent fugitive who was deported from the United States for sex offences and was later granted refugee status after slipping into Canada.

When Canadians read regular news stories like this one, they certainly do not feel safe, especially considering the recent terrorist attacks on America. If we are willing to provide a safe haven for violent sex offenders, who else are we willing to harbour?

What is worse is how this looks to our allies. Since the terrorist attacks on September 11, despite all its bristle and the introduction of Bill C-36, the Anti-terrorism Act, the federal government has stubbornly refused to acknowledge that our overly generous refugee system poses a major threat to our country's security and to that of our American neighbour.

Last year, we know that more than 45,000 asylum seekers arrived in Canada. Most of them were smuggled into the country by international criminal organizations that, in turn, brought these people through safe third countries. I would point out that many of these smuggling problems would be solved if we listed all western nations as safe third countries. After the events of September 11, it is inexcusable not to list all UN signatories to the refugee convention as safe third countries.

However, even more alarming is the knowledge that since the attacks against New York City and the Pentagon last September, more than 15,000 asylum seekers have entered Canada. Of these, close to 2,500 have come from terrorist producing countries, like Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Somalia, Algeria, Albania and Afghanistan. An additional 870 have arrived from Sri Lanka, almost all of them undoubtedly Tamils.

That is certainly not to suggest that all of these claimants are bogus. However, some could quite easily be members or supporters of various well-known terrorist organizations, like al-Qaeda or the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. The LTTE is one of the deadliest terrorist organizations in the world and is banned in Britain and the United States. I would suggest that if Canada had already proscribed the countries mentioned in my motion, this number would be significantly smaller and there would be far fewer opportunities for terrorists and criminals to slip through undetected.

Even if we were to disregard the current events, the reality is that when an illegal entrant arrives on Canadian soil and claims to be a refugee, there is very little chance that the individual will be removed, as I have already mentioned; remember the 27,000 deportees missing.

Unfortunately, this is especially true of serious criminals and terrorists because their removal frequently means they would be required to face justice in their homeland. Any thought of removal in such cases runs up against formidable obstacles. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies not only to Canadian citizens but also to anyone on Canadian soil whether in Canada legally or not.

In addition to the charter protection, even the most outlandish allegation that the individual might be mistreated or tortured will guarantee months, if not years of litigation. After several years of reviews, appeals and rehearings, the individual's own country will often refuse to accept the person back. Canada has been stuck with a number of these cases.

It would be easy to go on about this issue but I am allowed only so much. More important, I am looking forward to what my colleagues have to say about my motion. As I said before, it is unfortunate that this motion is not votable especially because the government appears somewhat warm to the idea of implementing safe third countries in our immigration policy.

Species at Risk Act

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Canadian Alliance, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to make some preliminary comments. I am from Saskatchewan and my riding is largely a rural one. The signals sent out by the government are not friendly toward rural Canada or are not perceived as friendly. There seems to be a total lack of sympathy by the government toward the plight of Canadian farmers and producers.

I noticed in the budget run-up the Minister of Finance noted that the average per capita contribution of Americans toward agriculture was $350 per person whereas in Canada it was less than half at $168. I was expecting some initiative in the budget but I did not see any. I guess this is more of the same with the government.

Bill C-68 was another piece of legislation that was perceived as a hostile step by rural Canadians. They cannot see any logic or reason behind the legislation. They see a total waste of money coming out of the legislation and they cannot see one single benefit other than maybe more job creation in this town for public servants.

The cruelty to animals legislation seems to be driven by the fanatics in the cruelty to animals industry. The last thing my constituents need is this sort of thing to enter their part of the world, with the aid of all the resources of government on its side, and harass people who are having a difficult time making a living, paying their taxes and supporting their families.

The endangered species legislation is just another intrusion in the lives of my constituents and they do not feel it is necessary either. When Liberals go around the country trying to determine why they are not very popular in rural Canada, they just have to look at their actions. The actions are the reason why there is this feeling of alienation in that part of the world.

In the fall we debated Bill C-36 and much hot air was let out over sunset clauses. We would be better served in the House if we started evaluating existing government policy with sunset clauses to determine whether they are achieving any useful results or not. We would probably find that a good part of what we have created is irrelevant, useless and we could do away with. We could simplify the world.

The reason I raise this is that the majority of members on the other side of the House believe that if there is a problem in society they can make it go away by passing a law.

Generals do not win wars by ordering a result. They win wars by having a solid strategic plan in place and having motivated, well equipped personnel who can carry out the plan. Anyone can order a result. The members over there could get a private member's bill or something that orders a result but that does not mean there will be a result. Getting and achieving results is something totally different than just ordering them.

Good laws, like success in the military field, require a plan that will work along with the resources necessary to complete the plan. It involves the co-operation of the necessary participants. The bill is a miserable failure on just about every count that we can look at. It totally overlooks two levels of government, municipal and provincial. The government has a bad habit of ignoring them. It likes to go right over their heads and ram something through without considering the impact.

The recent kerfuffle in Russia over the Kyoto accord is another example of how the government is out of touch with the people of this country.

This bill ignores one of the most important participants required to make the legislation work, the landowners. The Liberal government has continually shown contempt for property rights. When it brought home the constitution it absolutely refused to comprehend that the charter of rights should include some protection for property rights. Just about every other country that has something like that does entrench property rights or some recognition, but the Liberals did not. The Liberals had an opportunity to patch up their omissions with the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords, however they failed there as well.

Most people I know are involved in their businesses or their careers. They devote a huge part of their week toward creating income for themselves, their families, their communities and their government. In my province, government consumes something like 50% of all such income. At the end of the day, only a small portion is left over and people use that generally to acquire property and equity in property. We are no different.

Last spring the Liberals, with much enthusiasm, voted for a pay increase. Why did they want a pay increase? To buy a better boat, get a better home, get a better car or take a nice trip. Basically, what they were after was trying to materially improve their standard of living as Canadians, that is, property.

Everyone appreciates that the government, in trying to carry out its obligations or responsibilities, from time to time must interfere with property rights. No one is arguing with that belief. However, we do object to a government that ignores due process, and fair and reasonable compensation.

That is why the Liberal government, back in the early 1980s, refused to recognize property rights in our charter of rights. It did not believe in due process when it dealt with property rights. It did not believe in fair compensation to citizens who had their property robbed or damaged by government action. Maybe it was the Trudeau effect on liberalism. A little of that left wing, socialist mentality has crept into its way of thinking and is flourishing today in this society.

The Liberal government has a good track record of interfering by imposing obligations on Canadian citizens without providing compensation such as: the Canadian Pension Plan, EI, GST, fuel taxes, and payroll deductions. It imposed these obligations on businesses and put onerous responsibilities on them. It made them become its bookkeepers and tax collectors and, in most cases, there was absolutely no compensation whatsoever for doing these things. Again, it showed a wanton disregard for property rights and the economic interests of Canadians.

What really takes the cake, from the Magna Carta to where we are today, is that the British-American Anglo justice system says that it takes a guilty mind not just a guilty act to create a criminal offence. The government has a consistent track record of chipping away at that concept and turning things into strict liability. I do not know why it wants to do that because when it gets people in prison, no sooner does it get them in prison and it wants them out. It is a crazy system. Just about everyone else in the world recognizes mens rea, mental elements and so on and the government ignores it.

Sir John A. Macdonald Day and Sir Wilfrid Laurier Day Act

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval West, QC]

Madam Speaker, I believe the hon. member is getting everything mixed up.

I remind the member that in the aftermath of the tragedy of September 11 all Canadians, no matter what party they belonged to, recognized that new measures were required to ensure our common security. These steps need to be taken in co-operation with our international partners to strengthen our defences against terrorist attacks.

One such step is the protection of highly sensitive information, which is the point of the bill. The fight against terrorism depends largely on our ability to gather sensitive intelligence relating to terrorist activities. It is imperative that we be able to protect not only the substance of our intelligence but also its source.

As a final note, Bill C-36, which is the bill we are discussing here and not any other so-called misdemeanour the member of parliament could raise, provides for a comprehensive parliamentary review of the provisions and the operation of the act within three years after the act receives royal assent. I think we have proven very well that there is--

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development]

Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity today to talk about the points raised by the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough regarding Bill C-36 and the issuance of certificates by the attorney general, even if the member did not expressly mention it.

I would like to explain exactly how the new subsection 38(13) resulting from the coming into force of Bill C-36 works. The Attorney General of Canada has the power to issue a certificate that would prohibit the disclosure of information in connection with a proceeding for the purpose of protecting information obtained in confidence from or in relation to a foreign entity as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Security of Information Act or for the purpose of protecting national defence or national security.

The hon. member's question would seem to imply that the certificate could be used to deny the disclosure of all types of information held by the government, but this is simply not the case. Freedom of information remains the rule for the government rather than the exception. Full public access to the vast majority of government information will not be affected by the legislation.

The attorney general's certificate process is intended to apply in exceptional cases only as the ultimate guarantee that it ensures the protection of very sensitive information that is held by the Government of Canada.

I would like to add that there are a number of safeguards. I will mention only two, given the time limit. First, the certificate can only be personally issued by the Attorney General of Canada. Second, it can only be issued after an order or a decision for disclosure of that information has been made under the Canada Evidence Act or any other act of parliament that would result in a disclosure of the information.

Unfortunately time is short, but I would refer the hon. member to the subsections I just mentioned in my reply where he will find the exact information that develops my answer to him even more.

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

Madam Speaker, the matter which is before the House results from a question that was put to the minister. It is very much an issue that is in line with what we have seen happen on numerous occasions where the minister made an attempt to avoid giving any substantive answer.

The government continues to be out of touch in many ways with the country by virtue of avoiding straight questions and clouding its responses in secrecy. It does little to encourage, as I mentioned earlier, the relevance of parliament.

On October 23, 2001, I rose to ask a question of the Minister of Justice and spoke of the new Bill C-36, which was in response to the terrible events of September 11. I raised the issue with respect to Canada's watchdogs who had clearly indicated that the new anti-terrorism bill went too far in denying disclosure of information to Canadians. As a result, I suggested that this was open to abuse.

The legislation, as the Chair will recall, gives the government an opportunity to withhold information by denying access to information by virtue of the minister having at his or her disposal the issuance of certificates which essentially blanket the government's actions. Amendments to Bill C-36 will allow the Privacy Act and the Information Act to be subverted. The government overreacted in including this particular provision and this ability within the act.

I asked the government why it was using the security threat to justify a clampdown on the free flow of information. The response, as flippant as it was, was that the government was not involved in any kind of a clampdown. I suggest that there is ample evidence to the contrary, both at the time that the question was raised back in October and subsequent to that.

The Treasury Board ruling is a recent example of that. Expense reports and other documents relating to cabinet ministers and staff will not be released under access to information. This runs directly contrary to privacy laws. The Treasury Board president has said that the decision by her department to keep the ministerial expenses secret was an appropriate balance of the public right to know with privacy concerns.

That is simply not the case. It is a misinterpretation of the supreme court. The minister seems to be relying very much on the dissenting opinion of the court as opposed to the majority ruling.

We have expressed this frustration time and time again. I know the member for New Brunswick Southwest has a question on the order paper regarding the Lancaster Aviation cover-up and scandal. What Canadians are hoping, through their members of parliament and opposition, is that the government would reveal itself and keep those promises of transparency and openness that were so prevalent in prior election campaigns, literature and pamphlets. The government is letting down the country with respect to being open and revealing itself through information.

What comes from all of this is the suggestion that the country deserves better. The country should expect more. The government has not kept its word with respect to being open to Canadians. I hope that in the future we would see the government reveal itself more as to not only its past but its present intentions by addressing Canadians directly through the House of Commons.

Message from the Senate

[The Deputy Speaker]

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate chamber the Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:

Bill C-6, an act to amend the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act--Chapter No. 40.

Bill C-24, an act to amend the Criminal Code (organized crime and law enforcement) and to make consequential amendments to other acts--Chapter No. 32.

Bill C-31, an act to amend the Export Development Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts--Chapter No. 33.

Bill C-32, an act to implement the free trade agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Republic of Costa Rica--Chapter No. 28.

Bill C-34, an act to establish the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada and to make consequential amendments to other acts--Chapter No. 29.

Bill C-36, 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--Chapter No. 41.

Bill C-38, an act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act--Chapter No. 35.

Bill C-40, an act to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies and errors and to deal with other matters of a non-controversial and uncomplicated nature in the Statutes of Canada and to repeal certain provisions that have expired, lapsed or otherwise ceased to have effect--Chapter No. 34.

Bill C-44, an act to amend the Aeronautics Act--Chapter No. 38.

Bill C-45, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 2002--Chapter No. 39.

Bill C-46, an act to amend the Criminal Code (alcohol ignition interlock device programs)--Chapter No. 37.

Bill S-10, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Parliamentary Poet Laureate)--Chapter No. 36.

Bill S-31, an act to implement agreements , conventions and protocols concluded between Canada and Slovenia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Peru, Senegal, the Czech Republic and Germany for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income--Chapter No. 30.

Bill S-33, an act to amend the Carriage by Air Act--Chapter No. 31.

National Security

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

Mr. Speaker, it does not sound very smart or clear. The firearms provisions in Bill C-36 will permit the government to make secret orders to allow individual foreign nationals or any class of non-residents to carry guns for their employment. In effect, a minister will have the power to permit individuals to pack weapons with no guidelines and no regulations.

Why the ambivalent Liberal gun fixation? No guns for Canadian border guards, park wardens or even duck hunters, but if one is a bodyguard for a foreign dictator or a rock star, load up and come on in.

Missing Women

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the number of women missing from the downtown east side is a tragedy. Earlier this month the joint police task force released the names of 18 more women who are missing, bringing the number to 45 women. Many of them were involved in the sex trade and were at risk of the most awful violence and death.

I believe all levels of government must co-operate with all possible resources to find out what has happened to these women and to prevent more deaths and harm from taking place. SFU criminologist John Lowman has said repeatedly that women will continue to disappear and be killed unless Canada's prostitution laws are changed.

I implore the Minister of Justice to pay attention. Her bent on security in Bill C-36 did not help these women. Yet their dangerous environment is caused by federal laws pertaining to the sex trade.

These women are not pieces of garbage that can be disposed of. They are human beings with every right to dignity, safety and hope for the future. They demand our attention.

The Budget

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to engage in this debate. Somewhere in the middle of the debate the exchange of rhetoric on both sides of the House was somewhat surprising to me. I do not know how readers of Hansard or viewers of the proceedings are taking this but from time to time I get lost in the great gulf between the rhetoric of what seems to be on one side of the House and what is on this side.

For the benefit of my own constituents in Scarborough--Rouge River I will try to focus my remarks on something where there are not great gaps in credibility and understanding.

We have gone through a budget presentation. The budget records a number of landmarks around the budget year. The budget year is the year that will follow the budget, not the fiscal year ending in March 2002.

There are two or three landmarks I have taken pleasure in viewing. I would say the same no matter what side of the House I sat on. First, I have taken pleasure in the reduction of our public debt. We can measure public debt, net debt and foreign debt seven ways to Sunday, but to make the matter simpler we have managed over the last couple of years to pay down our net public debt by some $35 billion.

Someone in the House was inquiring what happened to the $17 billion surplus. Most of it went to pay down the debt. We did not pay down $35 billion in debt by losing money somewhere and not finding it. It had to be paid down with real money. It was paid down with real taxpayer money scavenged from the surplus we had accumulated over the last couple of years. Our debt now stands at about $547 billion by the simplest measure.

Second, our debt to GDP ratio has moved down from approximately 71% to 51.8%. Next year, the year beginning next April 1, it is anticipated that our debt to GDP ratio will fall to under 50%. That is particularly pleasing because most of the industrialized world uses the 50% threshold as the benchmark for affordability of national debt no matter how we measure it.

I will not get into a debate about the various components of our public debt, some of which are more manageable and repayable than others. However once we are under 50% GDP we have a very manageable portfolio.

The budget documents contain quite a bit of information about how the government intends to manage and diversify our debt to ensure Canadians pay the lowest interest rates and reduce the debt in an appropriately orderly fashion over the years to come. That will happen.

Third, there was a time a few years ago when it was said that we paid 36 cents of every tax revenue dollar on interest. The budget records the fact that this year, the year ending this coming March, we are only spending 23 cents of every revenue dollar on interest. Some will say it would be better if we did not have to spend 23 cents of every dollar, but that is a heck of a lot better than 36 cents of every dollar. That is where we are now. That is how far we have come. We are continuing to make progress.

The budget follows through with a number of other commitments the government had made previously. A lot of the rhetoric and discussion here today is about things that were not in the budget or should have been in the budget. The tax cuts that have been described as cuts of $100 billion over five years were announced previously. They were not in the budget. They did not need to be in the budget. They are already part of government policy.

The number for the fiscal year we are in is some $43 billion, but the tax cut over five years is continuing. It is in the pipeline. It does not happen in one year. Whether we measure it at 20, 40 or 100, no matter how many billions of dollars or how we slice it up, the tax reductions are in the pipeline for all Canadian taxpayers.

The budget was intended to address a weakening economy as well as the September 11 incidents. It is important to note that two things are happening already which most economists would agree in large measure do as much as possible to address a weakening economy: fiscal stimulus and monetary stimulus.

The fiscal stimulus is the current $17 billion of tax cuts which will find their way back into Canadians' pockets this year. That is already is the pipeline. That money finds its way back into the economy as fiscal stimulus by a reduction in taxes on paycheques for all who pay at source or for those who pay their taxes in other ways.

The monetary stimulus comes from the very recognizable reduction in interest rates across the country. Not that long ago we were all paying 10%, 11% or 12% interest on various things such as consumer debt, mortgages, business loans and the prime rates. Those rates have all come down to 3%, 4% and 5%. That is a huge difference to Canadians. These low interest rates are providing the monetary stimulus. There is not an economist anywhere who will not agree that they are mega, major stimuli for our economy. These things were already in the pipeline when the finance minister delivered his budget.

I cannot address the many other elements of the budget in the few minutes I have, but there is a huge emphasis on security. What happened on September 11 changed our perception of what is happening in the world. The threats manifest in that incident were quantitatively and qualitatively beyond anything we have experienced outside of wartime.

We know there is an enemy out there and the enemy is pretty much unseen. In true gamesmanship theory, when we have an enemy we must find and liquidate the enemy before the enemy gets to us. Without going into details about how we must do this, it is imperative that we do. It is arguable that this enemy is intent on blowing us into the dark ages. No one in the House will permit that to happen.

We must now invest in security and intelligence in a way that will let us find and root out the enemy. Some of that is happening today in Afghanistan as we speak, but there are many other things ongoing and many other threats related to that, not just in Afghanistan but here and in our neighbouring countries.

It is not always possible to go into detail about all the threats. Canadians understand that we cannot do it because there are ongoing attempts to find the enemy. If we tell the enemy we are looking for him the enemy then changes the players on the chess board and we make our success that much harder.

These things are going on now but there are huge risks out there. We do not know when the risks will reduce. There is no reason to believe they are any less today than they were on September 11. They will continue for some time.

In that process, it is possible that all of us as Canadians will be asked to rethink our own civil liberties from time to time and invest a bit in our own collective security. These issues have been discussed elsewhere in relation to Bill C-36 and Bill C-42. Where we will be a few months from now I am not sure.

I come from a riding which has a large representation from each of the five large Islamic groupings: the Sunni, the Shia, the Ahmadiyya, the Ismaili, the Bora and others. These groupings of the Islamic faith are embarrassed and unhappy that the terrorists have in a sense hijacked their faith and pretended that the Islamic faith is the reason for the terror.

This is not the case. We must all be sensitive to that. As we move along we must ensure that all Canadians are treated fully as Canadians and accorded all their civil liberties with great respect.