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

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

[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.

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand in this place and to partake in the budget debate. This is the first time since being elected just a little over a year ago that I have had the opportunity to participate in a budget debate, because as we all know it is the first budget we have seen in this parliament and in probably almost two years. It is time that the finance minister indulged our interest and that of many Canadians in dealing with our financial well-being and gave us some type of indication as to the course that he has charted in these turbulent times.

As a first time member, I sat and listened yesterday and I listened intently. As the critic for the solicitor general, I was listening particularly for a mention of CSIS, the RCMP and Corrections Canada in the budget. However, as a member representing an agricultural riding, I also listened intently to the speech that our finance minister brought forth as to how it would impact agriculture. I listened in order to hear to how it would affect the farm family, how it would affect the agricultural sector. I listened and I listened and I listened. There was really no response. It is a sad commentary when the Liberal government has forgotten a very important sector of our economy, agriculture, because it affects so many in the west and the regions of Canada.

However, it is a pleasure to be here today. I stood in the House over a month ago debating Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism legislation. I began that deliberation with a quote from the Toronto Star . Although I do not have time today to quote the whole article again, I would like to quote one or two sentences by James Travers from that article:

Now the federal government is desperately trying to respond by bringing forward legislation and introducing security measures that for years have been relegated to the bottom of the agenda. It clearly hopes that the current flurry of activity will somehow mask years of inaction.

On that note, I would like to say that this is the same response that we e see in this budget: years of inaction, years of forgetting to bring in a budget and now setting a course to try to rectify it. What do we see?

Witnesses from the Canadian Police Association, representing some 30,000 frontline police personnel in Canada, including RCMP officers, recently appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights regarding Bill C-36. During that presentation the association stated:

We have serious reservations...about the capability of Canada's police and law enforcement officials to meet the increased demands of anti-terrorism requirements and sustain important domestic policing and law enforcement responsibilities.

Let us make this abundantly clear. The Canadian Police Association request for more resources, and that is what it was asking for on that date, was not a knee-jerk reaction to the September 11 tragedy. It was the realization that there was a much larger problem.

For nearly a decade the Canadian Police Association has been requesting more money so frontline officers can effectively do the job, all of the job, not a selective part, not just a small amount, but all of the job. It has repeatedly asked the federal government to move on repairing the gaping holes in Canada's security and enforcement capabilities. Until then, it had not had much luck.

Our frontline officers were not successful in beefing up their numbers until the horrific events of September 11 highlighted the fact that Canada is viewed internationally as a point of entry. The events of September 11 made the government and many people recognize that Canada was an entry for access to the United States for criminals and terrorists.

Therefore, although we welcome the increased dollars given to the RCMP, as announced in yesterday's budget, I would be remiss if I did not point out that it is perhaps too late and perhaps also too little. The bleeding within our security and intelligence agencies has been occurring for so long that the band-aid approach we saw yesterday simply will not stop the bleeding.

According to RCMP commissioner Zaccardelli's own admission, 2,000 RCMP officers were withdrawn from other enforcement duties to respond to the terrorism crisis. The officers were taken from assignments previously considered to be priorities, such as fighting organized crime, providing frontline policing in their communities and waging the battle against drugs. Many of those jobs were left unattended as the RCMP scurried to deal with the latest crisis within its current budget constraints. Officers previously assigned to organized crime priorities had to abandon their investigations for anti-terrorist assignments.

According to the CPA, of the complement of approximately 15,000 RCMP officers, 9,000 are assigned to municipal and provincial contract policing responsibilities. Of the remaining 6,000, 2,000 of those or one-third, were reassigned to the terrorism file as confirmed by the commissioner of the RCMP.

Minimally, 2,000 additional officers are needed to service the deficiencies that are being felt hardest at the community levels. Taking the Canadian Police Association's estimates of $125,000 per officer, at minimum the RCMP should be given $250 million for staff alone. Yesterday's announcement falls much short of that mark.

Of the solicitor general's previous funding increases of $250 million, only $9 million was allocated to provide for staffing in priority areas for the RCMP. This, again based on the Canadian Police Association's estimates, equated to only roughly 72 full time RCMP constable positions. Obviously this was not sufficient to address in any meaningful way the new and existing national policing demands placed on the RCMP.

The Canadian Police Association, therefore, desperately looking for some salvation in this budget, failed. The government failed and fell short of the CPA's needs and expectations.

I will turn to the other and equally important component of Canada's security force, that being the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, or CSIS. Yesterday I had the pleasure, together with our Sub-committee on National Security, to go to CSIS offices to be briefed by the director, Mr. Ward Elcock.

Yesterday the government announced funding for CSIS of $334 million over a six year period. This amounts to $56 million per year. The new funding does not, on average, bring CSIS funding to the level it experienced in 1993. In 1993, funding for CSIS was $244 million. Under the Liberal government, funding was cut to $197 million in 2001. Funding cuts were occurring at a time when terrorism throughout the world was becoming more violent, more indiscriminate and more unpredictable. CSIS, in its 2000 public report, brought that out. It said:

Up to now, CSIS has been able to risk-manage the challenges. However, the terrorist events of late 1999 underscored the continuing requirement to review efficiency within the context of the existing threat environment, with particular emphasis on the allocation of human resources. More than ever, the Service--

This is the service dealing with our national security.

--must rely on risk management, concentrating resources selectively and precisely on the major issues, while assessing new and emerging threats.

What the report was stating was that CSIS was seeing acts of terrorism increasing and its budget decreasing. I would like to highlight the fact that this report was released before September 11. Long before the attack on America, CSIS was experiencing staffing shortages and a serious lack of trained analysts. Between 1992 and 1998 CSIS experienced a cut of 760 personnel.

Different individuals such as Wesley Wark of the University of Toronto and others brought forward the fact that money was needed but money was not enough. CSIS needed analysts and trained expertise. This budget does not allow them the resources that they need to bring them back to the 1993 level.

All these changes and enhancements as encouraged by many experts in the security field will cost much more than what was offered by the government yesterday. We need a stronger financial commitment. We need our federal government to stand and say that it recognizes the fight against terrorism will be a sustained one.

In closing, the budget is a start but it is not the whole enchilada. It is not what is needed by CSIS and the RCMP.

An act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am perhaps just following up on the comments of the hon. member who just spoke. I would point out that whenever we consider anything the government has done or is doing, we always do it with a certain degree suspicion because of its actions in the past.

I am not sure if I would completely agree with him that government members are acting in the most forthright manner in how they have handled the bill. It took a lot of effort by a great many individuals out in the real world, as well as all the opposition parties, to get them to split the bill into two bills. There has been considerable debate about that.

The one thing I would agree with him on is that at least we have had substantial debate on this bill and on this issue throughout its course through the Chamber. I only wish the Liberals would have applied that same high degree of debate and committee time to other legislation, notably Bill C-36, instead of invoking time allocation and ramming it through the House.

I will now focus my comments on report stage of Bill 15B, specifically the amendments that are before the House dealing with those sections and clauses that deal with the cruelty to animals. Like many who have spoke before me, I have heard from a great many of my constituents concerning this issue. I think all parliamentarians, regardless of party, have heard loud and clear from their constituents.

Unfortunately, as others have pointed out, this is an issue that to some degree pits urban versus rural people. Being from a riding that is roughly a quarter of the geographic size of British Columbia, a huge rural riding, the eighth largest riding in the country, obviously this bill and the way that the law, once enacted, could be interpreted by the courts is of great concern to the rural folks of Prince George--Peace River. They have made their concerns known to me.

Who are the stakeholders who have the greatest concerns with this legislation? Again, as other speakers from the coalition and other parties have stated, they are quite numerous. Medical researchers have been greatly concerned about the legislation because of the work they do in trying to advance the cause of disease prevention. Trappers certainly have reason to be concerned about it.

I want to specifically address hunters, guiding and outfitting and the economic benefit that this brings to my home province of British Columbia, specifically to my region of northeastern British Columbia, the Peace River--Prince George area. I also want to mention the potential for low income, local hunters as well. When we talk about big game hunting, we are not dealing specifically with guiding and outfitting. We are also dealing with the local hunters who are in many cases low income people who rely upon wild meat to provide a certain amount of sustenance to their families.

I remember my own youth. I am not sure exactly how much meat would have been in our diet, if we would not have had my father out hunting and getting the odd moose, or caribou or deer to put meat on the family table.

As well, people have raised concerns about the aboriginals. They have talked about their concerns with Bill C-15B and the provisions on cruelty to animals. The member from the Canadian Alliance who spoke before me is a past farmer like myself. He spoke quite eloquently about the potential impact on the agricultural sector industry and on people from his riding in Saskatchewan.

Let us use the case of farmers for example. If farmers had to spend time in the courts and incurred costs to defend themselves because of provisions of the law that would see them subjected to charges of cruelty to animals for their practices in the husbandry of animals and the way they raise their livestock, obviously at some point those costs would have to be passed on to the consumer. Although urban people may say that legislation such as Bill C-15B does not directly impact them, down the road it very well may.

Another stakeholder of concern is the rodeo industry. What will it mean for the Calgary Stampede, the Williams Lake rodeo and such organizations depending on the interpretation of the law down the road?

I am in support of the two amendments that I put forward on behalf of my colleague for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough who originally had the amendments in his name. I am disappointed that Motion No. 3 was ruled out of order because a similar motion had been made at committee stage. Therefore it was dropped and we will not get to vote on it at report stage. That motion would have removed the definition of “animal”. It is of great concern. My colleague from the Canadian Alliance spoke about that a few minutes ago.

Motion No. 9, which is also in my name, deals with the deletion of a clause that would move cruelty to animals from part XI to part VI which would take it away from the classification it has always had. For some 50 years we have had animals protected under the property section of the criminal code. Motion No. 9 would see that maintained for the future, rather than see it moved.

If the intent of the legislation is to increase the penalties to those who abuse animals, then obviously we would all find ourselves in agreement with the intent of the legislation. No one, except the cruellest of the cruel, would want to see insufficient laws or penalties in our country to deter abuse of animals. With the possible exception of child abuse, I cannot think of anything more horrendous than abusing a defenceless animal. If that was the case and the legislation was specifically targeted to that and it was very clearly defined, we would not have the problems that we see with the legislation. Unfortunately it is not clearly defined.

Interestingly enough, when I was having my morning coffee at home and was reading through the paper, I noticed a story in the Ottawa Citizen about a case of animal abuse and cruelty. A Belleville man who apparently had been out hunting after dark had mistakenly shot a pony instead of a deer. The article says he was drunk and stoned at the time. He received what I would classify as quite a harsh sentence. According to the story the man received five months for killing the pony and for animal cruelty and two months for an unrelated assault charge. In addition he received a fine.

The point I am making is that the laws we already have obviously can deal very harshly with those that are involved in the abuse of animals. That is good and is something we all support.

I would suggest that Bill C-15B is causing great concern for a number of industries. I wish I had more time to get into the potential impact it might have on industries such as guiding and outfitting, big game hunting and some of the other industries that are especially important not only to Prince George--Peace River but to all of British Columbia. Maybe at third reading I will have a chance to make those additional points.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to address Bill C-15B. The title of the bill is an act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act.

This bill was introduced at first reading on March 14, 2001, and at second reading on May 3 and 7, but it was not reviewed in committee before the summer recess of the 37th parliament.

The bill was split in two. It was the government's response to hundreds of letters and thousands of signatures from people asking for a more effective act regarding treatment, protection and penalties relating to animal cruelty.

Since most of the provisions of the criminal code on these issues dated back to the late 19th century, a growing number of associations and groups called for the legislation to be modernized, for the scope of the various offences to be considerably broadened, and for harsher penalties to be imposed for animal cruelty offences.

Because there is considerable support for a reform of the part of the criminal code dealing with animal cruelty, Bill C-15B gives rise to strong reactions and conflicting interests.

Initially, the Bloc Quebecois supported several elements of the bill, including the creation of a new part in the criminal code, which would see the transfer of provisions dealing with animals from part XI of the code, entitled “Wilful and Forbidden Acts in Respect of Certain Property”, to a new part 5.1, entitled “CrueIty to Animals”. However, the Bloc Quebecois can no longer support the bill, because it does not protect, among others, the legitimate activities of breeders, farmers, researchers, hunters and so on.

The purpose of this bill is to have more adequate means to deal with offenders who commit cruel and reprehensible acts against animals. The purpose of this reform is to protect animals.

However, while the Minister of Justice claims that the bill does not deprive the animal industry from its revenues, it would have been important to specify this in the legislation, so as to reassure the animal, farming, medical and sports industry regarding any risk of frivolous action.

This was not done. The minister simply amended the bill by adding the defences in paragraph 8(3) of the criminal code. The minister and the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights rejected the Bloc Quebecois' amendments, which would have explicitly added as a defence acting with legal justification or excuse and with colour of right.

The Bloc Quebecois was in favour of the bill in principle if it could have been amended to reflect the means of defence earlier allowed in part XI of the criminal code. That is why the Bloc Quebecois asked that the means of defence in article 429 of the criminal code be added explicitly to new part 5.1 of the criminal code.

According to my colleague, who defended this position in committee, these amendments were not accepted by the government members. In all committees, all we hear from these members is no, no, no.

The Bloc Quebecois is also opposed to the bill because it seeks to take away a number of powers and responsibilities which now fall under the jurisdiction of the Government of Quebec and give them to the chief firearms officer.

Since the gun registration scheme was first introduced, the Government of Quebec has set up agencies responsible for issuing permits—the Bureau de traitement and the Centre d'appel du Québec. Briefly, the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to the bill because it does not explicitly protect the legitimate activities of the animal industry, hunters and those doing research, and it takes away the Government of Quebec's authority to enforce the Firearms Act.

Bill C-15B contains the present provisions of the criminal code concerning cruelty to animals and adds a number of new provisions. Since animals are now considered goods and not human beings, the offences and recourses possible are essentially minor.

Enforcement of the legislation as it now stands results only in damages for loss of goods. In addition, because sentences are lenient, they encourage repeat offences. Animal rights groups have repeatedly called for better protection with respect to cruelty to animals. Respect for human beings begins with respect for animals.

The Bloc Quebecois is in favour of increased protection for animals, but only provided there is protection for legitimate activities involving animals, animal husbandry, sport hunting and fishing, and research. Such is not the case, even after the amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois, for all of them were rejected. The purpose of those amendments was to improve this aspect of the bill.

The initial premise has to be that all those involved directly or indirectly in the livestock industry judge this bill unacceptable in its present form. For the great majority of them, these new provisions are likely to increase the possibility of criminal charges against those who work in the industry or who engage in recreational activities such as hunting and fishing.

The demands by the chicken protection coalition clearly illustrate the concerns raised by Bill C-15B. The board of the Quebec federation of poultry producers called unanimously upon the federal government to amend Bill C-15B so that livestock producers would retain the legal protection they enjoy at the present time and be able to continue to exercise their legitimate profession without any risk of complaints or charges. All of the amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois relating to this were turned down by the committee.

I would also like to mention that the Ontario Federation of Agriculture is asking that the current wording of the provisions of Bill C-15B regarding cruelty to animals not be kept as is, but that it be amended to provide the agri-food sector with the legal protection that its members currently enjoy under the criminal code. It is a protection they deserve.

In conclusion, producers are asking for the protection of their livelihood and for the assurance that they will not be prosecuted for activities related to their work. The definition of animal could be a source of problems.

I would like to conclude by saying that the amendments moved by the Bloc Quebecois would have clarified certain provisions of the bill and would have made a clear distinction between hunters and people who voluntarily hurt animals just for the sake of seeing them suffer.

Unfortunately, the federal government has shown again its unwillingness to listen and its conviction that it knows it all. Had it been open to our excellent amendments, we could have supported this bill. However, such was not the case, and we will vote against the bill, because it needed to be improved.

It is obvious, with Bill C-27, Bill C-36, the one regarding marine conservation areas and all the bills that come before the House, that the government does not want to listen. It sees the opposition as totally useless.

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the stated purpose of the bill would be to consolidate animal cruelty offences and increase the maximum penalties. The bill would also provide the definition of animal and removes cruelty to animal provisions from part XI of the criminal code, that is, the property offence section.

Many groups have expressed concerns about the legislation: agricultural groups, farmers, industry workers and, indeed, medical researchers. Just recently we received a letter from the author Pierre Berton expressing his profound concern on behalf of medical researchers about what the bill would do in the area of medical research.

Many of the groups in fact support the intent of the law, as its objective is to modernize the law and increase penalties for offences relating to animal cruelty. However, despite some minor tinkering with the legislation as demonstrated here today in the bill, which is coming from committee, these groups advise that the bill requires significant amendments before their concerns are addressed.

One of the central concerns with the bill is in fact that the criminal code would no longer provide the same level of protection presently afforded to those who use animals for legitimate, lawful and justified practices. The phrase “legal justification or excuse and with colour of right” in subsection 429(2) of the criminal code currently provides protection for the offences found in respect of the property section. However, by moving the offences out of the property offence section and leaving the defences, in fact those defences no longer apply to the offences.

The minister, her staff and her parliamentary secretary have stated they somehow implicitly apply and that this should be good enough for members of the House and indeed for those who have expressed concerns about this legislation. However, when members of the Bloc and the Canadian Alliance asked Liberal government members to make the defences explicit in the new legislation, they refused.

Therefore I think there is a hidden agenda. There is a lack of frankness with the Canadian people about the true intent of what the bill is to accomplish. One of the interesting comments that the minister's parliamentary secretary made was in respect of the fact that one of the amendments to the bill will now confirm that the common law defences available under subsection 8(3) of the criminal code will continue to apply to any cruelty to animal offences.

Subsection 8(3) sets out the common law defences that we have inherited in our justice system and specifically already applies to all of the criminal code. It is not limited to any part. Yet the drafters of part XI, the property offence sections, found it necessary to include the specific defences that we find in section 429 relating to legal justification or excuse and with colour of right.

The parliamentary secretary said we would make it explicit that subsection 8(3) now applies to these offences that have been moved outside of the property section. Subsection 8(3) has always applied, so what the government is doing in a very disingenuous way is trying to lull people in agricultural or medical research or the other food production related businesses into believing that their concerns have now been met. In fact that is nonsense. Section 429 does not apply and those defences do not apply. To suggest that they implicitly apply is to mislead the Canadian people.

During committee I also listened with some astonishment to the fact that the minister had proposed screening mechanisms for all private prosecutions. We did not get a look at this. However, generally speaking, if there is controversial legislation, what ministers usually do, especially in the context of the criminal code, is require the consent of the provincial attorneys general to proceed with a prosecution in that jurisdiction. That is a time-honoured mechanism. The attorney general is there to prevent an abuse of the criminal court system.

The minister is now saying that she will not prevent these private organizations from bringing frivolous prosecutions by this time-honoured mechanism. We know that animal rights interest groups have indicated they will prosecute and take this law to the limits. Those are their words. However the minister has said that she will set up a screening mechanism which is very consistent with the type of cumbersome procedure that this government has enacted on previous occasions. Whether it is the organized crime legislation or Bill C-36, there is a real disconnect between the Department of Justice people who draft and propose these policy initiatives and the actual provincial prosecutors who have to go out and do the real work.

The mechanism being proposed is this. An information is sworn and then it is brought before a magistrate to prescreen to see if it is frivolous or vexatious. The purpose of requiring the information to be sworn is to determine that it is not frivolous and vexatious and that there are reasonable grounds to proceed. Now there will be another hearing at this stage. Imagine someone coming up in front of the magistrate saying that something is vexatious or frivolous. That person will be met now with another court hearing. Then the person could still be met with a certiorari application in the superior courts to quash the information. Then there is a possibility of a preliminary hearing to determine whether there is sufficient evidence for the matter to go to trial. Then we finally have the trial.

This is convoluted and is destructive of the criminal justice system. It will contribute to the backlog. Therefore, I am very concerned about the bill.

We have stated a number of reasons why the bill should not be supported. We have stated it in committee and we continue to voice our disapproval.

I want to make just a couple of comments in respect of the Liberal member who brought forward the animal service provision dealing with police dogs. We liked that amendment and supported it. What the Minister of Justice will do now with this amendment is water it down. I want the police officers and security agency people who use dogs in the course of their service to know that the Minister of Justice is watering down what a Liberal member first proposed.

My very last comment is that I support, and encourage my Canadian Alliance colleagues to support, Motion No. 7 brought forward by the Bloc member in respect of service animals.

Criminal Code

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues from other parties, I will be keeping my remarks on these amendments quite brief. I rise on behalf of the coalition to add some thoughts on this issue.

As others have said, there is more than just a touch of irony that the unelected other place was successful in getting these two substantive amendments to Bill C-24, despite the best efforts of opposition members, especially at the justice committee, to get similar amendments through in the House of Commons. Unfortunately that speaks volumes to the attitude of the government in its approach to legislation, specifically its approach to the consideration of amendments to its legislation.

Unfortunately something very similar transpired with Bill C-36 more recently, despite assurances from the government, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice that adequate consideration, and a common sense approach, would be given to representations from individuals, groups, opposition MPs and its own backbenchers. Once again we saw a flawed process brought to a very speedy close with the use of time allocation.

I would like to congratulate the Senate for bringing forward these two amendments to Bill C-24, the organized crime legislation. I refer specifically to the one increasing independent review or civilian oversight. That is especially appropriate, but not only for this legislation.

Similar concerns were put forward not only by opposition members of parliament, but by groups concerned about the rights and privileges of individual Canadians and the risk of abuse by police forces in how they would implement the new powers contained in Bill C-36. Very serious efforts were put forward by a number of organizations, including the PC/DR, to have an independent oversight agency or individual hold the police and law enforcement agencies that would have the new powers, such as CSIS, accountable rather than individuals going to court to hold the government and law enforcement agencies accountable, if they felt their powers were being abused.

That is an important amendment to Bill C-24 made by the other place. Hopefully, something similar will be included in Bill C-36. The same concerns are being expressed about Bill C-42, which we are just now beginning to debate.

The fact that the system had to ultimately rely upon the Senate to bring forward amendments successfully points to a serious flaw, as other members from other parties have said, at the committee level and in the House of Commons. We do not have a system of free votes. I would argue very strenuously that if we had that, much better legislation would be passed in this place. That legislation would then go to the Senate and it might not be required to make amendments that should have made here originally.

Hopefully it is something the government will consider in the future. It is hoped the government will free up its members to vote more independently, especially when dealing with something as common sense as amendments being put forward to legislation at the committee stage. It could ultimately have the effect of parliament being more democratic and also of the House of Commons operating much more efficiently and effectively.

Legislation would come back from committee properly amended. I suspect there would be fewer amendments put forward at report stage on the floor of the Chamber. In many cases that is one of the few tools the opposition members have to draw public attention through the television cameras to what they feel is flawed legislation. They bring their amendments forward at report stage in the Chamber.

Obviously the legislation, as has been said before, is targeted at organized crime, specifically at some of the horrific activities of biker gangs, especially in the province of Quebec. We are all aware of those activities. We do not need to rehash those ongoing issues. We want to ensure that our law enforcement agencies have the necessary resources, powers and the tools to combat organized crime wherever it occurs.

On that one specific issue, concern has been expressed by the coalition and by other parties about the financial resources available to our law enforcement agencies. In the eight year history of my involvement as a member of parliament I have spoken many times about the need to ensure adequate resources for the RCMP.

As the previous speaker for the Canadian Alliance alluded to, the legislation once it goes into effect can easily involve substantial expenditures by our police forces. That obviously would be at the local or city police level, provincial police forces or the RCMP, or presumably even an agency such as CSIS, in combating organized crime. It is much similar to the need for all those same agencies to wage the successful war against terrorism.

We want to ensure that we provide the tools that these agencies and law enforcement organizations require to do the job, to go head to head with organized crime and terrorists. We want to ensure that they have the adequate financial resources as well.

It is little help to them if we only say that we will make the necessary legislative changes to ensure that they have the power to do their jobs effectively and hold those individuals to account, whether those individuals are in organized crime, or undertake terrorist activities, or encourage others to undertake terrorist activities. It is simply not enough to give them the necessary legislative tools without giving them the financial resources.

Obviously all of us in this place and all Canadians will be watching with great interest the presentation of the finance minister's budget on Monday. We will be watching to see what financial resources will go hand in hand with the legislative tools to ensure that our law enforcement agencies have the resources and funds necessary to take on organized crime and terrorists wherever they may be lurking and hiding and conducting their filthy business in our country.

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as indicated by the parliamentary secretary, the import of the amendments is to increase clarity and independent review with respect to the designations of public officers.

The amendments are timely. They are born of the rapid succession of bills brought forward by the government to deal with public security matters. There is a growing unease among Canadians that the government is not concerned about debating the principles or details of bills it brings forward. The unease has increased as a result of the Liberals' imposition of closure with respect to Bill C-36.

While the position of my party vis-à-vis the Senate, the other place, is clearly in favour of democratic reform and accountability, it is ironic that non-elected members of that house have more freedom to take steps to safeguard the security and traditional liberties of Canadians.

This is because of the shameful conduct of the Prime Minister. It is shameful that the House is no longer permitted to vote in accordance with the values of Canadians. The Prime Minister and the government consistently use the dispensation of political favour or the withholding of political favour to ensure government members vote in accordance with the Prime Minister's personal wishes.

I am prepared to recommend support for the amendments, perhaps as a result of the troubling conduct of the government over the past few months. The amendments are more necessary now than they were a few months ago.

Bill C-24 still has serious shortcomings. It is procedurally cumbersome. It would do nothing to streamline prosecutions. It would require substantial expenditures on the part of provincial and local police authorities. At the same time the federal government demonstrates increasing reluctance to fund the operations and prosecutions flowing from the legislation it passes.

Law enforcement in the country is being crippled by cumbersome legislation and inadequate resources. It is ironic that the member opposite stands and talks about improved definitions. We have seen this type of legislation add detail to the process without an appreciable increase in security.

I am prepared to recommend the amendments born of the concerns raised in the Senate. I urge the government to review this type of legislation and re-examine the principles underlying many of the bills it is passing. They are not effective. Nor do they do anything to enhance civil liberties in the country.

Aeronautics Act

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from the Bloc Quebecois for his comments and his question. Obviously what we have seen transpire is of great concern to the very basis of democracy in this place. We have seen the government utilize time allocation and closure more than any previous government. That in and of itself is of great concern.

We saw the way the government handled Bill C-36 even though concerns were expressed, not only in this place, but in committee, by organizations from coast to coast, by every province and territory and by the average Canadians, about the potential for abuse in the area of civil rights and liberties. The government rammed the legislation through the House in the most undemocratic way possible with the use of time allocation. It shut down debate and, as my hon colleague alluded to, it shut off debate on amendments. There were some potentially excellent amendments brought forward by opposition parties which were never debated on the floor of the House. Some of the amendments were never debated in committee, despite the assurances of the Minister of Justice that we would have adequate debate and that there would be lots of time taken to ensure that we did it right. That was a very sad day for democracy, for Canada and for parliament.

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I will utilize all my time, but listening to the debate today I thought it would be a good opportunity to participate in the larger issue of the way the government is conducting the business of the House in its so-called fight against terrorism.

As I said to my colleague from the Bloc during questions and comments, I found myself agreeing with his overarching statement that one of the problems we in the House, let alone Canadians out in the real world, have with the government's approach to the war on terrorism is the way it is bringing in legislation.

We all recognize that while the legislation is hurried it must be done properly. There is not only a great need for the government to bring forward thoughtful legislation that will stand the test of time. It must allow the legislation to be open to amendments from all parties in the House. It must listen attentively to representations by people and organizations out in the real world who would ultimately be affected by the legislation we pass in this place.

Unfortunately what we have seen in the last two months or so, as my colleague was saying, is Bill C-36, the so-called anti-terrorism legislation; Bill C-35; and Bill C-42. Bill C-44 which we are debating today was hived off Bill C-42 because of the sense of urgency that the clause needed to be passed before the House rose for mid-winter break.

It is this approach that is causing consternation and concern among all opposition parties and to a certain degree the Canadian public. The government has not communicated an overall vision of what it intends to do to address the issue. It is encouraging the Canadian public to get back to business as usual.

We want to minimize the economic impact of the war on terrorism and the aftermath of the horrendous attacks. We all understand that. However the world has changed forever. People outside the Ottawa bubble recognize that at least as much as we do and possibly more. The world is not the same place. Canadians are looking to the government for leadership.

The government is bringing bills before the House one at a time. We in the opposition are expected to assist the government in making sure the best possible legislation is ultimately put into law, or at least sent to the other place for the Senate to consider. While we struggle with this it is extremely difficult if we do not understand the government's overall vision and exactly what it intends to bring forward.

As a number of individuals said prior to my remarks, we might react quite differently to legislation if we could see it within the overall context of what is coming down the road. We might be more supportive or more opposed.

We have no idea what bills the government may introduce between now and when the House rises next week. We do not know what it will bring forward in late January or early February to address different facets of the huge issue of terrorism and try to make our country, society and people safer and more secure.

As the previous speakers have said, we are supportive of the fact that the legislation before us today, Bill C-44, is very simple in nature. We are concerned about the lack of vision and foresight that the government continually exhibits and what that elicits in the minds of the public. It is not very comforting for the people of a country, who are looking for leadership, to see this piecemeal approach wherein legislation is very hurriedly brought in and then amended by the government amends.

In the case of Bill C-36, there were somewhere in the order of 100 amendments, the vast majority of which were brought forward by the government. Those types of procedures send a very clear message to Canadians that the government is not in control and that it does not have a clear plan. If it did, it would not have brought the bill forward and before it was barely in the House start looking at possible amendments, tearing it apart and rejigging it.

With Bill C-42, the government brought the bill forward, then rushed around and talked to all the opposition parties to see if there was some way the bill could be shuttled off to committee right away so the committee could hive off the clause that was needed right away. The government had some concerns about that because it wanted to adequately debate Bill C-42 on the floor of the House.

When the government ran into resistance with that, it then thought it could perhaps get unanimous consent to carve off one piece of the bill, submit it as new legislation in the form of Bill C-44 and then rush it through the House. That type of activity by the government is far from comforting or reassuring to Canadians, let alone to Americans.

I can well remember rising in my place to speak shortly after the House reconvened in late September. I believe it was the September 18, if memory serves me correctly. In my remarks at that time I suggested that it was incumbent upon the government to communicate to the Canadian people and Americans a vision of what it intended to do to make our country, and indeed our continent, more secure. Sadly, over two months have passed since the House reconvened and we have not seen that type of vision or comprehensive plan put forward by the government. We have not seen it communicate its plan is to Canadians and Americans or North Americans as a whole.

Instead, as my colleague from the Bloc just said, the government has brought forward one piece of legislation at a time thinking it could perhaps plug the problem with airline security, or airport security, or passenger lists or some potential problem at a seaport. I believe it is this piecemeal approach that is of great concern to the Canadian people. It does not send the proper message to Canadians or Americans that the government knows what it is doing on this all important issue.

My colleague from South Surrey--White Rock--Langley who spoke earlier on this legislation has done an incredible amount of work, not just in the last couple of months but in the last few years on the issue of border management. The issue of trade corridors is obviously of huge importance to her because her riding is very close to the U.S. border.

Cross-border trade is a big issue, not only to all Canadians but to the Americans as well. Eighty per cent of our trade is with the Americans and one-quarter of theirs is with us. However it also is a huge issue for her and to people of her riding. She has done an incredible amount of work on this very complex issue of border management, even prior to the horrendous terrorist attacks of September 11 and the fallout those attacks.

Unfortunately what we are witnessing now is a tightening of security at the U.S. border. The coalition has argued that that tightening of our entry points should be on a continental perimeter rather than restricted only to the American-Canadian border. I know this is of grave concern to local politicians. The mayors and councils of the cities closest to the U.S.-Canada border have become quite involved because they have recognized the fallout. Whether it is Quebec and the New England states, or the Windsor border area of Ontario or at different points across western Canada, this problem has affected the vast majority of Canadians, and we want to see it solved.

That is why my colleague, on behalf of the coalition, put forward more of a comprehensive plan, or a vision, on greater border management and security. One of the facets of the plan is a binational or bilateral agency to exchange freely information between the United States and Canada by setting up a databank computer system. By doing that our systems would be fully integrated and both countries would know exactly what was going back and forth across the border. We would then have the reassurance that both countries would know what is going on.

I am reminded of the example I used when I spoke to the issue back home in my riding of Prince George--Peace River during the November break week. I was talking to some Rotary clubs and chambers of commerce in the riding. I made the comment about the banks designing a bank card which could be used almost everywhere in the world. People could go to an international bank, put in a bank card and get money out in local currency. That truly is amazing when one thinks about it. If the banks could design something like that, then surely to goodness two countries with so much at stake, as Canada and the United States have on the issues of security and safety for our citizens, could design an integrated computer system and establish an agency to monitor that system. By doing that, both countries could feel comfortable in knowing who and what goods were travelling back and forth across our common border.

I commend my colleague for the work she has done on this issue and I commend our proposal put forward by the coalition on November 1. I know that she has had discussions with some Americans and American agencies on this issue and that the vision of a new way of managing the border between the U.S. and Canada has been relatively well received. It could bear some great fruit on how we approach this.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to be a little bit clearer. The Bloc Quebecois and, I believe, Quebecers and Canadians as a whole, would have liked to hear the government say: “This is what we intend to do to fight terrorism. A bill will deal with an issue, and another one with another issue. Bill C-42 will be about this and that”. We would have liked the government to explain the approach on which is based the anti-terrorism legislation we are going to pass.

This does not mean that everything should be put in a single bill. I agree with the member who said that an omnibus bill always contains elements that are frightening or that we would like to oppose, and others elements that are interesting and we would like to support.

Right now, we are in between: we do not know what to do and we feel the government tried to slip us a pill we did not want along with something we did. I have always been against such an approach. I have always said that the government should not proceed in such a way and I still hold that view.

We would have liked the government to show the political courage it seems to lack and spell out everything it wanted in terms of the legislation to fight terrorism.

I can immediately say that if we had been shown Bills C-35, C-36, C-42 and C-44, and if I had examined them with my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, we would not have supported Bill C-36 at second reading, because it went too far, because it was not consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and because it lacks the proper balance between national security and individual and group rights.

The government decided to introduce Bill C-36 first, and then Bill C-35. Still later, it came up with Bill C-42, which was supposed to be extremely important and which had to be passed in a hurry before the holiday season. Suddenly, we found out that the only very important part in this 100 page bill could hold on a single 8½ X 11 sheet of paper.

What are we to believe in everything this government is saying? This is called a piecemeal approach.

I congratulate the government on this initiative to have the minister remove a clause from the bill and introduce new legislation, Bill C-44. I agree with the splitting of this part, which will allow us to support it, although not wholeheartedly as I was saying earlier on Bill C-44, but in general. My colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel made a very eloquent speech in this regard.

We will indeed support this bill, even if we might add that the government has gone too far and that it is not abiding by the promises it made regarding the regulations. We will support it because life has to go on, particularly since many people deal with the United States in Quebec and in Canada. A lot of people travel, et cetera. On January 18 or 19, there would be a problem if we did not have legislation. Therefore we are going ahead with this.

But the government might be going too far. For the rest of Bill C-42, when the debate will be held, when all of that will be examined in committee, we will realize once more that it is really going too far and that we have to analyze all the pieces of the puzzle to understand the government's approach to the fight against terrorism.

I sincerely hope that there will be opposition members, who have done an excellent job on these rights, as well as some government members, such as the hon. member for Mount Royal, who told reporters before the bill was passed that it made no sense and he would be voting against it, but yet when the time came to vote, he stood up and voted the same as the rest of the government.

I trust they will be logical in their thinking, and will not yield to the government's pressure, the pressure it puts on every time it introduces bills of this kind.

I think I have been sufficiently clear this time on how I see things, and I believe I am not alone in my views. I think this is what the public wants, and it deserves to have the government act according to its wishes.