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

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

[Scott Reid, Canadian Alliance, Lanark—Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am privileged to speak to Bill C-15B which contains unfortunately provisions that are continuations of some of the greatest flaws in the legislative drafting practices of the current government. It behooves us to look at what some of these themes are and to think about what could be done to avoid doing them both in this law and other laws in the future.

There are three themes. First, this is an omnibus bill, but not as bad as it started off being. However it is still an omnibus bill dealing with more than one topic. Second, it strips basic legal protections from individuals who are accused of making offences under the law. This is a current theme that is also quite strong in Liberal legislative drafting practices. Third, it contains vague regulatory guarantees and requires us to take it on faith that the government would undertake the protections that it has refused to place within the law. At the very same time we are finding these guarantees withheld we are told to trust the government. The guarantees would be placed in the regulations at a later point in time subject to the government's arbitrary will.

These are three themes that are strongly present in the general legislative practices of the government. For example, Bill C-36 was an extraordinary omnibus bill that contained provisions like rules relating to the Internet and appointment of judges as well as the enactment of provisions relating to preventative search and detention, and provisions that related to the enactment of United Nations conventions and so on.

This law follows the same general pattern. It contains unrelated provisions dealing with cruelty to animals and dealing with firearms. I cannot see any reason why these two subject matters are contained in the same bill. There is no logical connection between them whatsoever.

The bill was worse before. It contained measures relating to child pornography which fortunately were split away from the bill and are now contained in Bill C-15A.

It is difficult to deal intelligently and to vote rationally on a bill that is effectively a package deal, a part of which might or might not be acceptable to an individual member. How does one vote one's conscience when something good and bad is contained in the same bill?

To some degree we have divided the good from the bad in the bill, but the bill should have been subdivided into several sub-measures.

This is a trend that has existed in Canadian legislative practice for some length of time. It has been a disastrous practice that nearly split up the country on some occasions. I am thinking of the Meech Lake accord which contained five unrelated constitutional amendments as a single package. They all had to be passed. Most Canadians were quite comfortable with certain aspects of the Meech Lake accord. Other aspects were quite contentious, particularly the distinct society clause. However they all had to be done together.

The Charlottetown accord was even worse. It was a package that effectively would have gutted the entire Constitution and cobbled it back together in a vast document that was several times as long as the entire United States constitution. It was presented as a single package deal. Had it been broken into a series of smaller items not all of them could have be passed, but many could have been. Some of them were good; a lot of them were terrible.

This practice has continued on in Bill C-15B and it should be stopped. It should not be a practice that occurs at all in Canadian legislation.

I will turn to the stripping of basic legal protections. This is another thing that occurs frequently in current Liberal legislation. I recall Bill C-36 and the way in which basic legal protections of Canadians were stripped away under the preventive detention provisions of that bill. That bill made it possible to be prosecuted for one's religious beliefs. Amazing, but true.

Bill C-5 has provisions which I am attempting to amend. I have several amendments before the House that deal with the question of mens rea, whether one must have a guilty mind prior to being found guilty of destroying an animal habitat or destroying an endangered species. That law denies the requirement that one must have a guilty mind, a mens rea, in order to be found culpable.

This law does much the same thing. I will say it is not as bad in this respect as Bill C-5, but it is still problematic. It takes the aspects of the criminal code that deal with animal cruelty and removes them from the property offences section and moves them to a special new section.

I cannot determine what the legislative reason for this is, that is to say what is the need for this, but I can determine what the result would be. The result is we would remove the various protections that are built in under the property parts of the criminal code. There are certain basic protections that are not accompanying this section of the law as it moves from one part of the criminal code to the other.

The phrase legal justification or excuse and with colour of right in subsection 429(2) of the criminal code currently provides protection to those who commit any kind of property offence. That would cease to be available as a protection.

It is a funny thing that those on the government side of the House are always happy to attack members on this side of the House as somehow being out to strip those who are accused of offences against the law of their legal protections and legal rights. The fact is, and the record will show this, it has been entirely the other way during the course of the government.

This law would strip those who are accused of offences of basic protections. Protections, which are inherent to our traditional rule of law, to the common law, and to our entire legal structure, would once again be stripped out in Bill C-15B, Bill C-5, and Bill C-36. This is a consistent, unacceptable, inexcusable and entirely avoidable pattern.

The meritorious goals found in parts of each of these three pieces of legislation could all have been achieved without stripping Canadians of these basic legal protections. They are absolutely not needed. That should be corrected in this law. Or, potentially, if the government were unwilling to protect it, then the law in my opinion, on that basis alone, should be dropped from the order paper.

I want to turn to the offer of vague regulatory guarantees that protections which are not included in the law would be included later on. We are told by the minister that this would be taken care of. There would be protections for those who are accused or charged, but they would not be included in the law, they would be included elsewhere.

The record of governments, not this government in particular but of governments in general, of protecting individuals administratively when they are not protected by law is very poor. That is the whole reason why our system of government is based upon the rule of law.

I encourage the minister and all members of the government to look at the classic academic text written by Albert Venn Dicey which deals with the question of the rule of law. It is a book called An Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution published in the 1880s and republished in many editions prior to Dicey's death around the time of the first world war. He deals with the question of the rule of law at length.

Privilege

[Cheryl Gallant, Canadian Alliance, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the arrogance of the government, its track record of intimidation and ruthlessness are cause for concern. You must take these factors into consideration in your role as defender of the minority against the tyranny of this majority.

I will give you, Mr. Speaker, another example as to why you should not allow this matter to proceed.

I participated in three contempt charges against a minister at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Despite the testimony, the Liberal majority on the committee failed to take any action to curtail ministers from making a mockery of parliament and members of parliament. They did not invoke any consequences to the former minister of justice with respect to her briefing the media on Bill C-15 ahead of members and before the bill was tabled in the House. They let her off the hook entirely the second time when Bill C-36 was also leaked to the media.

It appears that the outcome of the question of privilege involving the minister of defence is heading in the same direction of a Liberal cover-up as a result of public comments made in advance of the Standing Committee and Procedure and House Affairs report to the House.

We have witnessed over the years the persuasive powers of the Prime Minister in directing the Liberal majority in the House. I cannot accept that the Prime Minister's parliamentary secretary has been permitted to pursue this question of privilege if the government were not concerned that the truth could become known to the Canadian people. This is obviously just an intimidation tactic.

My colleagues have already made the point that the use of words such as deliberately misleading outside the House, under these circumstances, is perfectly in order and does not amount to contempt. No statements contributed to me and my colleagues in any way tarnish the reputation of the minister of defence. Public debate has already passed comment on the competence of the minister.

The point I do want to make is the fact that there is a real attempt on behalf of the government members and the Prime Minister's deputy minister to intimidate opposition members. In this situation, the only protection afforded to us is your decision not to allow the Prime Minister's parliamentary secretary to move his motion because once the motion is moved, our fate is in the hands of the Liberal majority, which is controlled by the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister is bent on defending his minister at all costs. His determination and ruthlessness in doing so has no bounds.

We had an example the other week, during the election of the chairman of the finance committee. The government whip was threatening opposition members and staff, as well as government members, to get the Prime Minister's choice for chairman elected.

It would be irresponsible to hand over to the majority Liberal government the fate of opposition members whose only crime is that we were being effective members of the opposition. That is what you are charged with protecting. In this scenario, that means you should sooner as opposed to later rule that this matter is not a prima facie question of privilege.

From a communications point of view, bringing this matter up in the way the parliamentary secretary has done, has been calculated as doing less damage than a positive finding in the committee. If the actions of the defence minister embarrasses the government, then why is it inviting more debate in the House? If it is worried about hearing the words deliberately misleading associated with the minister of defence, then I point out that because of this question of privilege I have heard those words again several times.

I looked at the Hansard from February 28, when the parliamentary secretary first brought up this matter. The words deliberately misleading were mentioned at least six times in the short debate on the question of privilege of that day. I would not be surprised if it is repeated a few more times before we complete today.

Maybe now the parliamentary secretary gets it. The issue is before parliament in a formal way, as a formal charge. Therefore, we can say the D word and the M word. We are not fooling anyone by not saying them. Everyone knows what the issue is.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the parliamentary secretary, I stand by my statement. I will not be intimidated. This I do to protect our democratic institution and the rights of all Canadians.

[Cheryl Gallant, Canadian Alliance, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I promise in the end of my statements to show my comments now relate to the matter at hand.

I am quoting from the letter from Mr. Cappe, the Clerk of the Privy Council, to the chairman of the Standing Committee on Procedures and House Affairs. He states:

I must also express to you my strong concern about the allegation by the Member for Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke that the Deputy Clerk of the Privy Council, Mr. Richard Fadden, may have intentionally misled Parliamentarians with respect to the deployment of JTF-2 on a military operation outside Canada.

I will now quote my letter to the chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in response to the allegation of the deputy of the Prime Minister's. It states:

As a Member of Parliament for Her Majesty's Official Opposition, my constitutional role is clearly defined to scrutinize the actions of government in an atmosphere of professionalism.

A careful perusal of the unedited transcripts of our committee show at no point did I use the word “intentional” in reference to deputy clerk Fadden's testimony. It was a statement of the facts given to our committee on this point by Fadden and certainly if he was in error on a key historical fact as to whether or not Joint Task Force 2 (JTF2) had been deployed outside Canada in the past, then he might have been in error on other points. I was not aware that questioning the reliability of a witness, regardless of who they are, in that manner is inappropriate.

I believe you recognized this when you acknowledged that I kept to parliamentary language in my questioning.

It would seem that it is Mr. Cappe who is drawing an inference from my remarks and stating it as a given fact in his letter when he writes “intentionally misleading”. I draw your attention to the actual exchange:

(Myself):

As part of the combined force sent to Rwanda, elements of the JTF2 were also deployed. Given those facts, would you not agree that your deputy clerk has misinformed the committee?

(The Clerk of the Privy Council):

Did he mislead the committee? I don't think he did it intentionally, if that was your inference.

It is clear from this exchange and the rest of my testimony that at no point did I use the words “intentionally” or “misled”. Curiously, Mr. Cappe is not denying that Mr. Fadden may have misled the committee, only that he did not do so intentionally. In fact it would appear that Mr. Cappe was drawing an inference from my use of the word “misinformed” even though I pointed out that Mr. Fadden had not qualified his words when he repeated that the JTF2 had never been deployed outside Canada for any reason previously.

As the most senior political appointment to the federal public service by the Prime Minister, the Clerk of the Privy Council does have a duty and a responsibility to maintain the professional integrity of all servants. Equally so, I am sure you will agree, Mr. Chairman, that it would be inappropriate for a public servant, even if it was unintentional, to suggest limits on parliamentarians, certainly when it comes to what is appropriate in a parliamentary committee.

Unfortunately in my experience this is not the first time the Privy Council, through the counsel of security and intelligence co-ordinator, has found it necessary to write to the chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to clarify comments to our committee recently. Mr. Fadden wrote to our committee chair on January 2 of this year regarding the contempt charges against the Minister of Justice in the premature release of the information outside the House on Bill C-36.

This evidence demonstrates that the Prime Minister's parliamentary secretary is not alone in this campaign of intimidation. The Prime Minister's ministry, the Privy Council, has been fully engaged in this campaign of intimidation. After the Deputy Clerk of the Privy Council appeared before the committee, and after I questioned the Prime Minister's deputy, the Liberal member for Toronto--Danforth openly threatened to fire witnesses who contradicted the Minister of National Defence.

These are hardly the actions of people concerned about the dignity of parliament. These actions themselves should be considered contempt. From the procedural book written by the member for Scarborough--Rouge River, The Power of Parliamentary Houses to Send for Persons, Papers & Records , at page 78 it references a resolution passed by the U.K. House from March 8, 1688.

Criminal Code

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

Madam Speaker, sometimes it is a daunting and intimidating task to follow my colleague who has a wealth of parliamentary experience and certainly continually displays a great deal of common sense. His cup runneth over in that regard.

My colleague and the mover of the motion similarly comes before parliament with motions such as this one that bring about change which would invoke a real impact in the important and significant community of firefighters who, as he has indicated, support him in this endeavour and for good reason. There is very much the motive behind this motion to bring about greater attention and a greater focus on deterrence for those who engage in a reckless activity such as setting a fire, arsonists who put lives at risk just by virtue of that act.

The firefighters are the front line who have to respond to that sort of reckless activity. This motion would call for a change to section 231 of the criminal code to amend the definition of first degree murder.

I listened with interest to my colleague, the parliamentary secretary. He has expressed, as he should, on behalf of the Department of Justice the constitutional concerns. We know time and time again that those concerns are real and are there. Charter constipation constantly arises in these debates, except in the case of Bill C-36 where it seemed to be cast to the wind. Yet this issue is really about putting greater emphasis on protecting the lives of firefighters.

What simpler message would come from this motion? As the member and previous speakers have pointed out, there is specific recognition in the criminal code for police officers, constables, sheriffs, deputy sheriffs and others working in the preservation and maintenance of public peace. Certainly firefighters would fit into that category.

There is some idea that there will be greater deterrence because clearly the penalties for first degree murder are the highest available now in the criminal code, life imprisonment. This is the general and specific deterrent that would come from such an amendment to the criminal code.

My colleague in the New Democratic Party from Winnipeg questioned why this would not happen, why things do not happen around here. He spoke of his suspicions. I will perhaps be a little more blunt. Sometimes there is a faceless, guileless guiding hand at the PMO that rears its head every now and again. I cannot imagine that there would be some intent to scuttle an effort such as this one, an effort that is aimed purely out of the goodness and the goodwill that come from such a motion.

This type of change would have an impact. It would allow the courts to react in a more significant way when faced with these situations. That is not to suggest that this is a simple case by any means. Each case is inevitably decided on its facts, on its merits. Yet what is behind the message in this motion is that offenders who recklessly go out and cause harm by way of setting fires, by way of putting death and destruction in their path, will face real repercussions and will face the jeopardy of going to prison for the rest of their lives.

A minimum sentence of life does not always mean life, as we have seen in many instances sadly. Yet including it as an aggravating circumstance, as suggested by my friend in the Bloc, might also be one of the ways in which it could be incorporated and by which we could recognize in legislation by codifying the Criminal Code of Canada that firefighters deserve this special recognition by virtue of the important role they play in society and the important tasks they undertake every day when they go to work at the station, put on their gear, ride trucks to fires and save lives.

It would show that their government, their country, their countrymen and women are in their corner as well. It would respect and recognize what they do and the jeopardy in which their lives are placed by virtue of their job.

The motion is very admirable in its intent. I daresay there is no hesitation on behalf of members of the Conservative coalition to support the member in what he is seeking to do. There are offences that already have these special attachments, hate crime being one that was alluded to earlier, where a strict and strident response is available to a judge to mete out in response to circumstances that come before the court.

That flexibility exists. Why on earth would we deny the opportunity to codify a recognition of firefighters? In particular the obvious allusion has been made several times to what happened on September 11, those horrific circumstances and the renewed vigour with which firefighters across the country and around the world became the focal point of emergency situations. Society was reminded in those dire circumstances what huge risk, what incredible sacrifice exists in that vocation.

The range of options currently available for the crime of arson as an indictable offence go up to the sentencing maximum of 14 years. The motion intends to expand that envelope. It does not say that in every case this will happen, surely not. The burden of proof will still remain with the crown. The police forces in their investigative efforts must still produce evidence before a court that is admissible. Then a conviction would be rendered and the judge would have this sentencing option available to him or her.

I agree with the parliamentary secretary that there is an element tantamount to an end run around the issue of intent which is somewhat problematic. That is why I agree with the common sense and useful suggestion that perhaps this is an issue which should be referred to the justice committee for examination.

It is an issue on which we could hear from the fleet of government lawyers available, but I would suggest as well lawyers practising in the field. More important, we should hear from the firefighters lobby because I am sure there is ample research and interest within that community to have the opportunity to make the motion a reality.

Raising the bar of accountability is part and parcel of what this criminal code amendment would do. On the surface it is never a bad idea to have greater accountability and responsibility. It is something we should strive for and something we should encourage in most legislative intents.

There are already references to the fact that not every fire is one that is set with the intent to cause bodily harm or murder. Sadly there are children who often engage in this activity. I think of a recent occurrence in Lunenburg county where Canada's oldest church was reduced to rubble because of a fire on Halloween night which was suspected to have been caused by children.

With the jeopardy in mind that can befall a person charged with arson we have to be somewhat cautious in making any kind of a criminal code amendment which mandates exactly what the punishment will be. This is not an amendment which mandates that in every instance there will be a penalty of life imprisonment. Surely not every fire is set to inflict harm on a person.

In conclusion I say to the hon. member and to members present that we support his effort. I am encouraged by the level of support that has been expressed here and by those who have contacted the member and encouraged him to pursue it further.

I hope there will be genuine goodwill and intent on the part of the government to bring this matter before the justice committee. I hope we will have an opportunity to see the issue through to fruition to allow firefighters to clearly receive the signal we want them to receive. We value and cherish the work they do and respect the task they have each and every day in their lives as they protect Canadians everywhere.

Point of Order

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

Madam Speaker, before I proceed, I want to say that I totally agree with what my colleague had to say about the motion.

For those who are watching, it might be interesting to read the motion once again, to fully appreciate the comments that can be made throughout the debate. It was not supposed to be a votable motion, but it will be following a decision made by the Speaker of the House.

The motion reads as follows: “That this House condemn the government for its failure to implement a national security policy to address the broad range of security issues, including those at Canadian ports of entry and borders, and call on the government to reassert Parliament's relevance in these and other public policy issues”.

There is a part of this motion that we cannot disagree with, but there is also another part on which we cannot agree and, since this motion has been made a votable item, members will understand that we have to vote against it.

In the last few weeks, even the last few months, the Bloc Quebecois has made its position clear on the bills the government introduced to address the events of September 11 and the issues of international crime and terrorism.

I said at the time, and it still holds true, that we do not have any real example of how this policy has been implemented or abused. As my colleague mentioned earlier, there will always be the potential for abuse as long as the legislation opens the door to certain things, and the legislation in question does open the door to this kind of abuse. I remember stating very clearly in this House that, if the government had a clear vision on how to fight terrorism, it should have submitted its anti-terrorism legislative agenda.

What did it do? First, it introduced Bill C-36, which provided for a whole series of new powers for police and law enforcement officers. It included very broad definitions and infringed upon rights and freedoms, all under cover of ensuring national security.

I remember saying it. The police, the government and the ministers, to whom Bill C-36 gives great powers, bragged about these new powers. Twenty-four hours before this bill was introduced, one could not have imagined that such a piece of legislation would be introduced in this parliament, in a country called Canada. Canada is not a police state, as other countries may be.

Using as an excuse the events of September 11, the need to protect national security and the fact that the public was concerned, the government introduced Bill C-36. Even then, I had concerns about its application, and I still do. The fact that there has not been any abuse of these new powers so far does not mean that it will never happen.

In its great wisdom, the government did not unveil its entire legislative menu to fight terrorism. First, it put Bill C-36 through the House, and then it introduced another bill, Bill C-42, which went a little further. Unfortunately for the government, it went too far and met resistance.

We already had Bill C-36, which allowed electronic surveillance, gave increased powers to the police, and authorized arrests without a warrant. Then there was the whole issue of the sunset clause in the bill, which finally became a review clause. These powers already exists. Bill C-42, without giving increased powers, without providing for the establishment of military zones or something of the kind, went much too far, and it was just unacceptable.

Again today, we are debating Bill C-42; we are talking about it, but we have not adopted it. When will the government bring back Bill C-42? We will see.

However, we know that because of pressure from the United States, part of this bill was passed before Christmas because the U.S. had finally decided that no Canadian plane would be allowed to land in the U.S. if this part of the bill was not passed. We had no choice, economically, from the point of view of travelling and all that could result from refusing to pass that part of the legislation. We therefore had a vote and passed that part.

As for the legislation, as my colleague said earlier, the government seems to deal with in a piecemeal fashion. If the government really had a clear vision of the type of legislation needed to deal with terrorism effectively, it would not have gone about it this way. It would have introduced legislation as a package that we could have analyzed on the basis of our own experience and of the case law that exists in this country, with our way of doing things and with our charter of rights and freedoms. We could have analyzed the whole range of government initiatives to fight organized crime. Instead, it has been done bit by bit.

Worst yet, on top of giving excessive powers to some categories and putting forward legislation that is going too far, which I hear even from the police, the money is not forthcoming to make sure the act is implemented properly. It is all very nice to give powers to the police, but if we want these powers to be exercised properly, if we want that there be monitoring, to prevent abuse and to fight efficiently against terrorism, we must make sure we have the money to implement the act.

I can already hear the government say “We have allocated the money; we made an announcement”. Indeed, it announced it would invest $576 million over six years in national security, $21 million of which had already been announced even before September 11. However, it lumped it all together to make the amount look bigger, to make itself look good and to score political points. It said “Five hundred and seventy-six million dollars over five years”.

However, if we take away what had already been announced for various programs, we are left with $87 million a year of new money to implement the Anti-terrorism Act, increase monitoring at borders and in ports, when we know that the government's position on ports is to cut personnel. Indeed, there have been layoffs in major ports, in the ports of entry for containers and ships coming from abroad. The government has made cuts when it was supposed to enhance port security.

It is so true that, in this respect, I read recently in the paper that the Americans were going to put their own people in Canadian ports to monitor everything heading for the United States through Canada. This is going too far. Canada is loosing its sovereignty to foreign countries. On top of this, the border will be just about 100% monitored by the Americans.

Mr. Speaker, you seem to be in agreement with what I just said. I realize that what I am saying does not please the Liberals, but that is the reality. If Quebec were sovereign, we would have done things quite differently from the government across the way. This is another reason why Quebec must be sovereign, because we do things differently from the people across the way. Furthermore, it is the only way for Quebec to develop as it should.

However, I did not intend to talk about Quebec's sovereignty. Let us talk about Canada's sovereignty and the great Canadians opposite who kowtow to the Americans and give away a little more of Canada's sovereignty every day. One of the latest compromises is to allow Americans in Canadian ports to rule the roost with respect to the containers in transit to the United States.

This is the vision the members opposite have of Canada. I could have talked about this for hours, but it would seem that my time is up. This is a very interesting topic, but as my colleague said previously, we cannot support this motion for the reasons I mentioned and many other reasons, whether it pleases the government or not.

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, as you probably know already, I will be sharing my time with the member for Berthier—Montcalm. I rise today on this opposition day of the Progressive Conservative/Democratic Representative Coalition whose motion deals in part with national security.

At the outset, I would like to say that in spite of the fact that the last part of the motion is of some interest since it calls for greater involvement of parliament, the Bloc Quebecois will not support the motion.

We are not questioning the appropriateness of looking at the need to put in place new measures to improve and enhance public safety.

Our message to all those who were expecting to tear a strip off the Bloc for its position on national security is that, contrary to what the Prime Minister dared claim before the House not so long ago, the fact that the Bloc is refusing to give free rein to the Liberal government on defence and national security issues does not mean that we are taking the side of terrorists nor that we are more concerned about their fate than about the protection of honest citizens. To claim such a thing is pure demagoguery.

First of all, either I do not quite understand the scope of the motion before us or my Coalition colleagues were asleep last fall. As it stands now, their motion states that the House of Commons should condemn the government for its failure to implement a national security policy.

I will refer to Bill C-42, the Public Safety Act, and to Bill C-36, which became the Anti-terrorism Act. I hope this will juggle their memory.

I am willing to believe that, with regard to this last bill, the opportunity for the Coalition to speak on the topic was substantially limited by the passing of a time allocation motion. However, I find it rather astonishing that they managed to forget the theme which captured the attention of parliamentarians, the media and the population as a whole from September to December.

Moreover, the Anti-terrorism Act was, in terms of its impact on individual rights and freedoms, the most significant piece of legislation on any legislative agenda since the notorious and now infamous War Measures Act, from which Quebec suffered the abuse in October 1970.

We must be careful and not agree too quickly with the coalition when it states that the government has not implemented a public security policy. I think it is appropriate, indeed necessary, to put things into perspective.

First of all, let me go over some of the security measures included in Bill C-42, which is still before the House at second reading.

First, the bill authorizes ministers and delegated officers to make security measures and interim orders in order to respond to security threats.

Second, it implements the Inter-American Convention against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunitions, Explosives, and Other Related Materials.

Third, it provides for better control over the export and transfer of technology.

Fourth, it allows a senior immigration officer to suspend the consideration of a refugee claim.

It also creates military security zones.

Furthermore, it extends the powers of the National Energy Board to include matters relating to the security of pipelines and international power lines.

Finally, it authorizes the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to disclose information to the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada.

Now, in the Anti-terrorism Act, the government took the following measures.

First, it created a whole series of offences related to terrorism.

Second, it created new offences to counter intelligence gathering activities, including the unauthorized communication of special operational information.

Third, the rules of evidence were changed so as to allow the non-disclosure of evidence that could be prejudicial to national defence or to national security.

Then there is the possibility of intercepting communications without prior judicial authorization. Lastly, the Minister of Justice has the discretionary power to exempt information from the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act.

Obviously, these measures were not taken under a national security policy, but the fact remains that these are 12 major measures, some of which went so far that we had to vote against the Anti-terrorism Act and we will have to do the same for Bill C-42. Moreover, there is a most important point that needs to be mentioned. Members should not forget that, in the most recent budget, which was tabled in December of last year, security got the lion's share with $7.7 billion over five years.

The fundamental question we must ask ourselves is not whether the government should have taken or should be taking these security measures under a comprehensive, integrated, national policy or something like that. In fact, what is important is not the colour of the envelope but its content.

Therefore, we must ask ourselves if the government is showing initiative and if it is taking the appropriate measures. The answer to both these questions seems obvious to me. It is no in both cases.

With regard to the level of initiative shown by the government, one cannot escape the fact that this government is constantly in reactive mode. Seeing how it runs the country on a piecemeal basis, one does not have to look any further to find the reasons why the Americans are dictating the approach we should be taking with regard to security.

The Liberals have no idea what the term “proactive” means. The recent events that unfolded just confirmed what we already knew.

Furthermore, we have denounced the relevance of these measures on countless occasions throughout the legislative process involving Bills C-36 and C-42. We repeat this again today: the measures proposed by the government do not establish a fair balance between security and freedoms.

Some will say that, contrary to what we fear, Canada has not become a police state. However, even if the debate remains purely in the realm of the theoretical, the problem lies not in the fact that there has not yet been any abuses of wiretapping or any arbitrary arrests. The problem is that this possibility exists within the text of the bill. Also, it is helpful to remember that since Bill C-36 was passed, the crisis has subsided to a large extent and these measures have yet to be put to the test. The situation could be quite different if there were another crisis.

As well, if the measures proposed were as effective as the government claims, how can it explain the backlog at the borders and the fact that drug imports have not diminished since Operation Printemps 2001 and the tightening of border security since September 11?

In its February 2002 report entitled “Canadian Security and Military Preparedness”, the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence examined the most vulnerable elements that the terrorists could make use of. The committee heard a wide range of witnesses including representatives of organizations responsible for the various aspects of security in the Montreal-Dorval and Vancouver international airports and in the maritime ports of Halifax, Vancouver and Montreal. In so doing the committee had the opportunity of examining the capabilities and security plans of these organizations. Moreover, the committee based its discussions and conclusions on the following premises:

1. The efficient use of security intelligence can help reduce the risks to society.

2. The limited resources available force us to discriminate in favour of cooperation both internally and externally.

3. The use of technology can enhance the effectiveness of security measures exponentially.

On the other hand, solutions as simple and affordable as the erection of a fenced security perimeter and a monitoring system could certainly increase port security. I cannot believe we needed the Senate to come up with that.

In conclusion, while this motion has a certain interest, the Bloc will not support it essentially because it is vague, ambiguous and too general to risk tying our hands for.

[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--