Bill C-36 (Historical)

Library and Archives of Canada Act

An Act to establish the Library and Archives of Canada, to amend the Copyright Act and to amend certain Acts in consequence

Criminal Code

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thought we were debating Bill C-46, not Bill C-20 on child pornography. Consequently, the pace of this debate is a bit surprising. I also marvel at my previous colleague's definition of brief remarks. If he was being brief, I would not want to hear him give a longer speech.

That said, I rise to speak on Bill C-46 with some disappointment as we had supported this bill at second reading and I had spoken in support of it some time ago.

At the time, I expressed the wish, as I did again in committee, that the government would consider possible amendments, including one on a matter I will address later. Unfortunately, the government has been inflexible, perhaps in the belief that it is the keeper of absolute truth and the ruler by divine right. No matter what the reason, the government's rigidity, inflexibility and closed-mindedness mean that today I invite my Bloc colleagues to vote against Bill C-46, which contains, however, numerous important provisions and clauses that we support.

There is, however, one basic provision in this bill which we in the Bloc Quebecois cannot support and on which we cannot agree with the government. It is the reason we will be voting against Bill C-46.

I felt it was important to make this clear right from the start. Given the inflexibility of the government, I will explain why our position has changed.

Bill C-46, which we have before us today, amends the Criminal Code and creates two new offences: prohibited insider trading and threatening or retaliating against employees for disclosing unlawful conduct. It increases the maximum penalties and codifiesaggravating and non-mitigating sentencing factors for fraud and certainrelated offences and provides for concurrent jurisdiction for theAttorney General of Canada to prosecute those offences.

Bill C-46 also creates a new procedural mechanism by which persons will be required to produce documents, data or information in specific circumstances.

Let us place all of this in context. The recent financial scandals in the United States, the Enron affair for instance, have made us all aware of the fragility of our financial system and, unfortunately, of how dependent we are on it.

Although we may think at first that only major investors are affected by a financial crisis, that is not the case. The biggest players on the stock market, in fact, are the pension funds. If a pension fund suffers major losses, therefore, the little investors are the ones who can end up losing their life's savings and watching their retirement plans go up in smoke. That is what is so worrisome.

As well, according to the financial analysts, there has been a trend recently for retirement trust funds to go more for stocks than for fixed income securities. A financial crisis in Canada would have a direct impact on the retirement income of millions of households. Those households are the ones we, as parliamentarians elected to represent the population, have a duty to protect.

Fortunately—and we do not yet know the reason for it—Canadian stock markets have so far been relatively free of wrongdoing, with the exception of Nortel and CINAR. I raised the latter issue again today in oral question period.

We can feel that something is not clear in this CINAR affair, and the Bloc Quebecois is determined to uncover what may be hidden, particularly what may lie behind the CINAR affair.

It is the opinion of the Bloc Quebecois that, while several of the experts we consulted believe that our securities regulatory systems are much more comprehensive than the ones the U.S. had before the financial crisis I referred to earlier, it is important to send the clear message that financial wrongdoing is a serious crime that will not be tolerated in our society.

This is what prompted my hon. colleague from Joliette and myself, in the fall of 2002—more than one year ago—to call for major amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada to provide the appropriate authorities with better tools to fight financial crimes.

Let us take a brief look at these proposed changes to the Criminal Code I put forward back in the fall of 2002. In our press briefing, we proposed adding a section that would make insider trading a criminal offence, in order to send a clear message to company directors that the use of confidential information obtained in the performance of their duties for the purpose of making profits or avoiding losses would not be tolerated. The fact is that making profits or avoiding losses in this manner impacts negatively on other investors who do not have access to the same privileged information.

This provision would have been added after section 382 of the Criminal Code. It would have created an offence of insider trading, which would have carried a maximum sentence of ten years' imprisonment. As we can see, the government accepted our suggestion and included a new offence of insider trading in the bill.

The Bloc Quebecois also proposed that a new offence be created for securities fraud. This offence was patterned on the measure adopted in the United States. We say so freely and without fear. It would carry a ten-year prison sentence and prohibit fraud when selling or buying securities

We had also proposed two amendments to section 397 of the Criminal Code. This section clearly stipulates that fraud is committed by someone who:

(a) destroys, mutilates, alters, falsifies or makes a false entry in, or

(b) omits a material particular from, or alters a material particular in,a book, paper, writing, valuable security or document.

In our opinion, this provision could have applied to falsified financial statements.

Furthermore, subsection 2 of this section makes it a specific offence if documents are falsified with the intent to defraud the creditors.

Currently, both offences carry a five-year prison term. We felt that this sentence was not dissuasive enough. Consequently, we proposed increasing the maximum term of imprisonment to ten years.

Finally, we proposed adding a third subsection to section 397 of the Criminal Code to specifically target the falsification of financial documents with the intent to defraud shareholders. We believe that shareholders are a more vulnerable category since—unlike the majority of creditors—their investments are not guaranteed. Therefore, we do not see why it is an offence to defraud creditors and not shareholders.

In committee, we suggested very specific amendments incorporating the elements that I just listed. Unfortunately, although as always, the Bloc Quebecois put forward these amendments, changes and proposals in a constructive manner, the government rejected them.

I would like to make a small digression to mention, or rather to deplore, the lack of respect the government has shown lately to the members of this House, particularly to those who sit on the Standing Committee on Justice.

Bill after bill comes before us. It is top speed and full steam ahead on the bill to decriminalize marijuana. The committee is also studying soliciting and prostitution. The government, when it sets the schedule for committees or the House, does not pay any attention to the fact that for many of us it is extremely difficult to be here in the House to debate government bills, and at the same time, to sit on committees. Even though, every Christmas, when asked what I want most, I always say I would like the gift of ubiquity, no one ever gives it to me.

So, while we were debating a government bill here in the House and I was scheduled to speak on behalf of my political party, the Standing Committee on Justice was meeting at the same time, and going about its business, despite the fact that several members of that committee were in the House. I could not defend the amendments I had put forward.

I think that is quite deplorable from a government that, probably sensing the end of its regime approaching, wants to get all its bills passed as quickly as possible, and therefore the work is not done well, because the members who follow the issues—on both sides of the House, in fact, because my Liberal colleagues are in the same situation—cannot contribute as much as they should to improving the legislation before them.

The government shows little consideration for its own legislation, its own bills, as seen in the fact that it does not give the members the time they need to properly examine the bills before them, and this will count against it.

When we are talking about such essential things as Bill C-46, commonly called the Westray bill, which is now before the House, or Bill C-20, the child pornography bill, or Bill C-36 on decriminalizing marijuana, in my opinion it is essential to proceed at a pace that allows the members to be here in the House and in committee at the proper times, but also to digest, assimilate, and understand the many suggestions made by the witnesses who come before us.

In fact, why spend thousands of dollars calling witnesses to appear and why ask them to come before the committee to explain their point of view and suggest amendments and improvements if the members opposite cannot digest the information provided.

All this to say that the constructive, intelligent, consistent and non-partisan amendments I moved in committee should have been moved by a member from the other side of the House. I am not questioning the hon. member's competency. I am in no way accusing him of bad faith. However, the fact remains that the amendments could not be moved, debated and defended by the member who sponsored them.

That concludes this essential digression to explain the current environment in which the members are working. Now I want to get back to Bill C-46 itself.

The Criminal Code would create a new offence prohibiting insider trading, with a maximum ten-year prison sentence.

Although insider trading is currently prohibited under provincial legislation regulating the sale of securities within Canada and under the Canada Business Corporations Act, this new offence under the Criminal Code will apply for cases requiring harsher sentencing.

Since this new offence was directly inspired by the proposal my hon. colleague from Joliette and I made over a year ago, we are pleased to see its inclusion in Bill C-46.

Employees who disclose to or assist law enforcement officers investigating capital markets fraud also need protection against intimidation. These employees often have a key role to play in disclosing scandals in companies, but they may be intimidated or threatened, including through measures against their job or their livelihood.

Creation of a new offence of threat or retaliation relating to employment would encourage people with inside information to co-operate with law enforcement officials and would punish those threatening or making use of reprisals. This offence would be punishable with up to five years' imprisonment. The Bloc Quebecois is in favour of this provision.

To strengthen penalties in cases of fraud on financial markets, and to make sure that the punishment fits the crime, the proposed reforms would increase maximum sentences for existing fraud offences, and would establish aggravating circumstances, which the courts should take into consideration in sentencing.

Maximum prison sentences would rise from 10 to 14 years for the present fraud offences under the Criminal Code, and for those affecting the public market. Maximum sentences for market manipulation offences would increase from 5 to 10 years.

The proposed reforms would also include a list of specific aggravating circumstances allowing the courts to impose stiffer sentences for the most serious offences. Factors such as the extent of the economic impact or any negative impact on investor confidence or market stability could lead to increased sentences. Moreover, a person's reputation and standing in the community or work environment, which have always been considered mitigating factors that can reduce penalties, could not apply in such a case. Those guilty of serious market wrongdoing are often able to get away with their crimes precisely because of these factors.

We feel these are interesting proposals, but we regret that the government did not consider our suggestions with respect to increasing the sentences under section 397 of the Criminal Code.

I will conclude by explaining why we are against Bill C-46: the involvement of federal prosecutors. As members know, financial market regulation comes under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the other provinces, as does the administration of justice. Under Bill C-46, the Attorney General of Canada would have concurrent jurisdiction with the provinces and the territories to prosecute certain criminal fraud cases, including the proposed new offence of illegal insider trading.

Federal involvement in this area would supposedly be limited to cases that threaten the national interest in the integrity of capital markets. According to information released by the federal government, the Government of Canada will collaborate—that is always a key word with the Liberals, but we know what it means—with the provinces to ensure proper and efficient concurrent jurisdiction by establishing prosecution protocols.

We absolutely cannot support these new provisions. They all seem to confirm the federal government's desire to infringe upon yet another area of Quebec and provincial jurisdiction, the securities market.

In committee, I proposed an amendment to the bill that was constructive and would deny federal prosecutors the right to prosecute in these cases. The government rejected it.

Knowing the federal government's penchant for interfering in the regulation of securities markets, we are opposed to Bill C-46, because the Bloc Quebecois would never consent to the federal government's meddling, however minimally, in provincial jurisdictions.

Because of the government's inflexibility and desire to intrude in the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces, the Bloc Quebecois is voting against Bill C-46.

Library and Archives of Canada Act

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that Bill C-36, as amended, be deemed to have been now read a third time and passed on division.

Business of the House

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

Bill C-36. On the Order: Government Orders

October 28, 2003--the Minister of Canadian Heritage--Third reading of Bill C-36, an act to establish the Library and Archives of Canada, and to amend the Copyright Act and to amend certain acts in consequence.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among all parties in the House through the House leaders regarding Bill C-36. I am very pleased to announce that an agreement has been arrived at. It will take me a couple of minutes to read it into the record and to seek the unanimous consent for which it has already been agreed. A copy of what I am going to say has already been served to the desks across the way and the table also has a copy. I move:

That Bill C-36, in Clause 21, be amended by replacing lines 33 to 40 on page 9 and lines 1 to 26 on page 10, with the following:

Works not public before December 31, 1998

(3) Where

(a) a work has not, before December 31, 1998, been published or performed in public or communicated to the public by telecommunication,

(b) subsection (1) would apply to that work if it had been published or performed in public or communicated to the public by telecommunication before December 31, 1998, and

(c) the relevant death referred to in subsection (1) occurred after December 30, 1948 and before December 31, 1998, copyright shall subsist in the work until the end of 2048, whether or not the work is published or performed in public or communicated to the public by telecommunication after December 30, 1998.

Works not public before December 31, 1998

(4) Where

(a) a work has not, before December 31, 1998, been published or performed in public or communicated to the public by telecommunication,

(b) subsection (1) would apply to that work if it had been published or performed in public or communicated to the public by telecommunication before December 31, 1998, and

(c) the relevant death referred to in subsection (1) occurred before December 31, 1948, copyright shall subsist in the work until the end of 2006, whether or not the work is published or performed in public or communicated to the public by telecommunication after December 30, 1998.

Those are the changes unanimously agreed to and I submit them to the House for unanimous consent.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to answer that question. I think it is an excellent question.

This afternoon we will continue with the debate on Bill C-48, the resource taxation measures. We will then turn to a motion to refer Bill C-38, the cannabis legislation, to committee before second reading. If this is complete, then we would follow with: Bill C-32, the Criminal Code amendments; Bill C-19, the first nations fiscal institution bill; and Bill C-36, the archives bill, if we get to that. There is some discussion going on about Bill C-36.

Tomorrow we will begin with Bill C-19, if it has not already been completed, and then go to Bill C-13. If we have not completed the list for today, we could as well continue with that.

Next week is the Thanksgiving week of constituency work. When we return on October 20, it is my intention to call Bill C-49 to begin; that is the redistribution legislation, for the benefit of hon. members. When that is concluded, we would return to any of the business not completed this week or reported from committee.

Thursday, October 23, shall be an allotted day. That is the sixth day in the supply cycle.

Public Safety, 2002

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I assume that I have the last few minutes of debate on this bill. I want to concentrate my comments as succinctly as possible on the effect of this bill, specifically on the community that is going to be most targeted.

I listened to a number of the other speakers and some of the information that came out of the committee. Everybody agreed that this bill is about balancing security and safety with civil liberties and civil rights. When doing that balancing act, if we start from an atmosphere of hysteria and fear, we know where we will end up. That is true, whether it was during the second world war when we incarcerated the Japanese Canadians, members of the Italian community, and members of the German community, or whether it was during the October crisis. The reaction in fear to a crisis was nowhere near proportional to the need for the War Measures Act.

We are in the same atmosphere post-September 11. We get this kind of legislation where there is no balance, where civil liberties and civil rights are very clearly a secondary consideration. It is a bill that turns over those rights and the ability to abuse those rights to a very small cadre of people in this country and it does not allow for any meaningful oversight of the role that those individuals would play.

It was very interesting that at the time the War Measures Act was used, we did not have any oversight body. We saw the kind of abuse that went on as a result of using that legislation. It is the reason that we did away with it when calmer times prevailed.

What are we doing now? We are repeating the same mistake. We are putting into place legislation, and this is the end of the pieces of legislation after Bill C-36, that will rebuild that infrastructure which is wide open to abuse. At the same time as we are doing that, we are limiting if not eliminating any oversight by Parliament and realistically by our courts.

This legislation in many respects has been drafted in such broad language that our courts will have a very difficult time using the charter to protect individual citizens. What we have learned post-Bill C-36 is that the Muslim community and people who come from certain areas of the world are going to be most negatively impacted. We are going to see a very real reduction in their rights and with this bill in particular, a reduction in their right to travel. If they travel to the Middle East or into Pakistan, they will now have a profile which makes them suspicious. Their ability to be involved in politics in this country will have a chill on it because they are going to be seen as associating with certain groups.

The reality is that is the consequence of this legislation. We will not be able to claim ignorance because we know from the results of Bill C-36 what the consequences will be.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I rise with considerable emotion after a comment or intervention like the one by my friend and colleague from Champlain. No bill, no motion, no subject in this House can be debated in this way, when a person has had an experience like that described by my friend and colleague.

Too often here in Ottawa, when we are discussing a bill, even if we want to be close to the public, we sometimes forget the distance that separates us MPs from our fellow citizens. A comment such as the one we have just heard reminds us that all the fine words we pronounce here have repercussions on our communities. The bills on which we vote will one day impact on the people in our communities, in our counties, in our municipalities. If we make poor decisions, they are the ones who will have to bear the brunt of our error, as in the circumstances the hon. member for Champlain has described to us.

We have just had a clear demonstration of that. It is why the Bloc Quebecois is so sensitive to Bill C-17. We have seen concrete examples of why we feel that way, and why we are opposed to the bill. We have wanted to remedy the situation right from the start, in order to make this bill, which started off as Bill C-36, more acceptable.

It is quite ironic that we are dealing with a problem that occurred on September 11, 2001 by discussing it on October 7, 2003. It is as if we were still discussing whether, if those tragic events had occurred here, who would be responsible for cleaning up the mess, the Minister of Industry or the Minister of National Defence.

More than two years after those tragic events, we are trying to remedy the situation through passage of a bill. We are still discussing the advantages of passing a public safety act, which started out as an antiterrorism act.

I will, if I may, give a little historical background on this Bill C-17 we have before us today.

As I mentioned earlier, Bill C-36 was introduced in response to terrorist attacks. Although we supported the idea of an antiterrorism bill—as it was originally called—we believe that this current bill disturbed the desired balance between security and freedom.

The Bloc Quebecois felt that this would not ensure a fair balance between security and freedom. Furthermore, the amendments proposed in committee by the minister are clearly insufficient to restore that balance.

The Bloc Quebecois did not oppose this legislation for the joy of opposing it. We did not block the bill, as we are often accused of doing. On the contrary, we tabled amendments, not to delay it, but to improve it and its implementation.

We had asked, and this is very important, for the bill to include a sunset clause. Something may happen, and perhaps this bill will no longer be needed in the future. There is a start date and an end date. This is not like legislation on the environment or the official languages. The official languages legislation had a sunset clause right from the start, meaning it was adopted one day and the next day it ceased to truly exist. The sun set very fast.

We asked that this bill be reviewed in one year and, second, that there be an end date. And if it needed to be extended, we would have been responsible and extended the bill.

We asked for an automatic review each year and not just every three years, as proposed. The sunset clause and the annual review, instead of every three years, were not significant changes, but rather corrections to bring the bill into line with its stated purpose, which is to protect the public from possible terrorist attacks or from the creation of terrorist groups.

We also found the bill's definition of terrorist acts overly broad.

Moreover, the fact that the attorney general could withhold information by not applying the Access to Information Act was not enough for us.

And there is also the fact that the bill will only be reviewed in three years' time, as I said before, and the fact that the Minister of National Defence would be able to intercept international communications simply by sending a written request to his officials. We also wanted to correct or clarify some other aspects to make the bill more acceptable, as I was saying previously.

Then Bill C-42 was introduced, followed by Bill C-55 and now by Bill C-17. We can see that this bill has evolved. Some of the amendments, some of the Bloc Quebecois' concerns have been heard and we have gained a very significant victory with regard to the controlled access military zones.

The situation was corrected and the designation “controlled access military zones” was taken out of Bill C-42 and of the following bills. If that had not been done, Quebec City for example could have been identified as a controlled access military zone et been subject to the War Measures Act and the Public Safety Act or Antiterrorism Act, and federal laws could have been suspended in these controlled access military zones.

The Bloc Quebecois has made a good presentation with respect to responsibility. Today we can say to everyone that even though we oppose Bill C-17 as it stands, at least we won a victory regarding the controlled access military zones.

But this is a special debate today, discussing a bill like this one that has an impact on people's individual freedom, rights and safety. At the same time, there is time allocation to gag us once again. We could set up a counter and keep track of the number of times they have forced through a time allocation motion.

Today, once again, the government House leader rose in the House to tell us that Bill C-17 is a very important bill. It is a bill on which consultations will be held, but in a very limited time frame. He told the members of Parliament and the message goes out to the population that bulldozer tactics are being used on a bill dealing with every man and woman's individual freedoms. I want to remind the House that it is extremely important and saddening that we are having closure imposed on this bill.

The last aspect of this legislation that particularly concerns us—and we oppose its application—are the powers to be granted to the RCMP. What image is the RCMP projecting today? I should ask, instead, what the Prime Minister and the government are doing to the RCMP's image, by using it for political purposes.

I want to give a few examples. There is Shawinigate, which concerns the golf course and the hotel. Three, four or even five years ago, the RCMP launched an investigation into apparent conflicts of interest. The report on this investigation has disappeared. Groupaction did not make three copies, that is for sure. If they did make three copies, then they lost all three. So, there is still no report, no investigation, and no conclusion to that investigation.

There is also the sponsorship scandal. Paul Coffin was investigated. The report will surely come out. The RCMP may be investigating others, the real big cases like Everest or Groupaction. We do not know and no one will tell us. In addition to this refusal to tell us, the investigation report will never be made public.

I feel it is totally unacceptable for a government to make use of the police for political purposes and thus to tarnish its image, particularly since it wants to give it more powers.

In addition to Shawinigate and the sponsorship scandals, now we have CINAR. They refuse to tell us whether there has been an investigation and whether there was a report. We do not want to know the report's contents, just whether or not it exists. That is all we want to know, and they will not tell us. They are even refusing to tell us whether there was an investigation or not, yet the then deputy prime minister and heritage minister gave us the name and phone number of the lady who was supposedly carrying it out. Today they will not even tell us if there was an investigation.

As for the Radwanski affair, here we have the same thing all over again. Maybe the RCMP will look into it. We will end up with more or less the same result as with the ethics counsellor, which is either nothing at all, or something that is totally useless.

We are therefore opposed to enhanced powers for the RCMP. In principle, we want to improve this bill and to make it acceptable. As it is, however, we will continue our opposition to it.

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Berthier—Montcalm. With words, sentences and substance, he was able to summarize all the issues that are now in Bill C-17, Bill C-55, Bill C-42 and Bill C-36.

However, no matter what number is given to this bill, it still contains flaws. Since the beginning of this debate today, we have talked constantly about the balance that must exist between freedom and security. Paragraph by paragraph, my colleague from Berthier—Montcalm has gone over the issues in this debate and, above all, has pointed out the elements that are contrary to our fundamental values.

My question is quite simple. No matter what number the government is using, whether it is Bill C-42, Bill C-55, Bill C-36 or Bill C-17, why is my colleague still saying that he is against this bill?

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize. On September 11, 2001, the United States was the target of deadly attacks. The world reacted quickly with an unprecedented mobilization to fight terrorism.

The Bloc Quebecois was part of that mobilization. That day, on September 11, we spoke out strongly against the attacks and, in the following hours, we offered our cooperation to the federal government with regard to the emergency measures needed to deal with the situation. Later, in a speech made on September 17, 2001, our leader, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, set out the principles that would guide our actions following these tragic events.

The response must reflect and respect our democratic values. In other words, we established the rules that would govern our actions from then on. In fighting terrorism, we must strike the right balance between freedom and security.

Unfortunately, as we will see later on, the federal government has failed. The measures it has proposed do not respect this balance. This is particularly true of bills such as Bill C-17, which we are debating today.

If I may I will proceed in chronological order. The first bill put forward in response to the terrorist attacks was Bill C-36. Although we were at first in favour of the idea of anti-terrorist legislation, we believe that the bill proposed by the federal government did not strike the right balance.

Indeed, the Bloc Quebecois felt that Bill C-36 did not effectively balance freedom with security issues. Moreover, the amendments put forward in committee by the minister turned out to be insufficient to restore this balance.

Terrorists attacks and the terrorist threat have reached an exceptional level and created an exceptional context. Bill C-36 was an exceptional bill in answer to an exceptional situation. Should the terrorist threat subside, several of the measures proposed in Bill C-36 would become unacceptable.

This is why the Bloc Quebecois asked the government to include a sunset clause in the bill so that it is no longer in force after three years, unless the House decides otherwise.

The Bloc Quebecois asked that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human rights automatically review the act every year following a report by an independent commissioner. Those Bloc amendments were turned down.

These are the other elements of Bill C-36 which are problematic for the Bloc Quebecois. The definition of terrorist acts is too broad and could lead to abuse against groups or individuals who have no connection with terrorism, as we saw last week.

The Attorney General and the Minister of Justice could withhold information by not applying the Access to Information Act, and there would be no safeguard. This was the conclusion of the Privacy Commissioner and a judicial review.

The act will only be reviewed in three years, which is much too long. The Minister of National Defence will be able to intercept international communications simply by making a written request to the Centre, without the authorization of a judge.

This bill includes all the provisions found in the bill on the registration of charities, which the Bloc condemned.

The government can list entities as terrorists without the authorization of a judge.

We tried to propose amendments to fix the problem, by adding, among other things, a sunset clause that would have limited the application of the act in time.

However, our amendments were rejected, and we felt that the amendments made by the minister fell far short. Consequently, we voted against the bill.

Later, allegedly as a complement to security enhancing measures, the government introduced Bill C-42, the public safety bill. From the day it was introduced, the Bloc Quebecois expressed its opposition to the bill, judging that some of what was proposed went too far and actually had little to do with terrorism. For instance, the new power conferred upon ministers to make interim orders leaves too much room to arbitrariness. As for the military security zones, they were very poorly defined, and their designation left the door wide open to all sorts of abuse.

This bill was replaced with Bill C-55, and later by Bill C-17. Unfortunately, these two bills do not strike the balance required either.

If we look at the Bloc's position on military interventions as part of the fight against terrorism, we did support the military strikes in Afghanistan. We had asked that these take place under the umbrella of the United Nations, however. As far as the deployment of Canadian troops was concerned, we agreed, provided that it be subject to a debate and a vote in the House of Commons. Finally, we were very critical of the behaviour of the American administration, particularly with respect to the use of cluster bombs and the establishment of military tribunals for terrorists.

After these two bills on terrorism from the federal government, we can only conclude that the government has failed in the fight against terrorism. The measures presented do not strike the right balance between freedom and security. And even worse, the government is trying to use the fight against terrorism to justify exceptional measures, although some of these measures are neither necessary nor justifiable. We need only think of the use that could be made of the information obtained under Bill C-17 with respect to persons named in a warrant. We are opposed to Bill C-17, first, because we believe that basically it is bad law. It is also a sign of the failure of the federal government's strategy in the fight against terrorism.

The bill now before us is a new version of Bill C-55 on public safety, which was itself a new version of Bill C-42.

In speaking to Bill C-55, we concentrated on three major points: the controlled access military zones, or military security zones as they were known in Bill C-42; interim orders; and the exchange of information on airline passengers.

Of these three, the controlled access military zones mentioned in Bills C-42 and C-55 have been completely removed from this bill. This is quite a victory for us.

The bill still contains provisions on interim orders, although the time allowed for tabling an order in Parliament and getting cabinet approval has been shortened considerably. Nonetheless, our primary issue, the lack of a prior check for compliance, remains.

With respect to the exchange of information, the proposed amendments to the previous bills are clearly inadequate. The coverage of the proposed provisions is much broader than the war on terrorism, and the provisions do not strike a fair balance between security and privacy. We voted against this bill at second reading.

In committee, we tried to alleviate the various problems related to this legislation by moving numerous amendments during clause by clause consideration. Nearly all our amendments were defeated. I want to share with the House the general tenor of the amendments we tried to make.

With regard to interim orders, Bill C-17 authorizes various ministers to issue such orders without first ensuring that they comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the enabling legislation. We tried to re-establish this preliminary check, but our amendments were defeated.

In the latest version of the bill, interim orders must be tabled in Parliament within 15 days after they are issued. We find this to be excessive and asked that the time period be shortened to five days.

With regard to the powers of the RCMP and CSIS, this legislation includes provisions that confer sweeping powers on the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service with regard to passenger information compiled by the airlines.

In vain, we tried to amend the bill to limit the powers to retain or use information collected as a result. We wanted to prohibit this information from being used to execute a warrant of arrest. We must not forget the War Measures Act in Quebec in 1970.

We also wanted to ensure that the information collected would be destroyed within 24 hours after the plane carrying the passengers on whom information had been collected had landed, except if such information was reasonably necessary for transportation security purposes or an investigation related to national security. In this legislation, the time period within which such information must be destroyed remains seven days. In our view, this is too long.

Finally, we also tried to institute an mechanism to ensure that the Privacy Commissioner would receive a copy of the reasons justifying why some information had been retained; this was also voted down.

We also proposed other amendments. We tried to effect several changes, namely to the parts concerning the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention Implementation Act, and the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act, either by suggesting amendments or voting against certain clauses. The purpose of these changes was to respond to the concerns of various groups that appeared before the committee. These changes were not made either. That is why the Bloc Quebecois voted against this bill.

Let us now talk about military security zones. The notion of military security zones has completely disappeared from the bill.

The Bloc Quebecois was unanimous on this. Dropping military security zones from the public safety bill is an important victory for us.

As for the declaration of special zones, this measure strikes us as far more reasonable than before. We will, however, be keeping a close eye on developments and will remain extremely vigilant in order to speak out against any potential abuse. We must also ensure that no zone will be created in Quebec without the consent of the Government of Quebec.

The bill still contains provisions allowing various ministers to make interim orders. There are two relatively minor changes that were made; orders must be tabled in Parliament within 15 days and the duration of the order has decreased from 45 to 14 days, that is, the length of time it is in effect without cabinet approval.

There was no prior check on charter compliance or compliance with the enabling legislation carried out by the Clerk of the Privy Council. I have a diagram with me that illustrates how the provisions on interim orders have evolved from Bill C-42 to Bill C-55 and Bill C-17.

Starting with the compliance check, the answer was no for all three bills.

As for the interim orders, under Bill C-42, these expired after 90 days except with approval of the governor in council; with Bill C-55, the time limit was 45 days except with approval of the governor in council. Now, with Bill C-17, it is 14 days, except with approval of the governor in council.

As far as tabling the orders in Parliament is concerned, there was no provision for this in Bill C-42, while in Bill C-55 the tabling had to take place within 15 sitting days after it was issued. In Bill C-17, it is 15 days.

Obviously, we can see that there have been marked improvements between the first version, Bill C-42 and the present one, Bill C-17. The main problem is still with us, however: the lack of a prior check for compliance with the charter and enabling legislation.

As for information sharing, Bill C-17 allows two stakeholders to obtain passenger information directly from airlines or operators of reservation systems: the Commissioner of the RCMP and the Director of CSIS.

This information can be requested if there is an imminent threat to airline security. Only CSIS can also request information for investigations into threats against the security of Canada. Bill C-55 would also have allowed this, in order to “identify a person for whom a warrant ofarrest has been issued”.

As a rule, information provided to the RCMP or CSIS must be destroyedwithin seven days after it is provided orobtained, unless it is reasonably required forthe purposes of transportation security or theinvestigation of threats to the security ofCanada.

On May 6 of this year, the Privacy Commissioner released a letter outlining his concerns with Bill C-55 in connection with the gathering of information by the RCMP or CSIS. His reservations were related to the provisions allowing the RCMP to use personal information on all airline passengers in order to locate persons for whom there was an outstanding warrant for any offence punishable by a sentence of imprisonment for five years or more.

He also expressed reservations about the provisions allowing the RCMP and CSIS to retain the personal information of passengers for such purposes as searching for suspicious travel patterns.

With respect to the first point, several provisions were problematic at the time. Among them, there was the definition of the term warrant and those provisions allowing the RCMP to collect and communicate information about individuals subject to an outstanding warrant. The commissioner suggested that these provisions be withdrawn from the bill.

Our present understanding is that the government tried to tighten up these provisions but was unsuccessful. As a matter of fact, while the RCMP can no longer obtain information for the purpose of finding an individual subject to a warrant, it can still convey to a peace officer information obtained through the provisions in Bill C-17 if it has reason to believe that this information would facilitate the execution of a warrant.

However, in actual fact, the RCMP decides by itself when there is a threat to transportation safety and can thus ask an airline for information on passengers. There is no mechanism controlling the use of this provision. In other words, the RCMP has carte blanche. Giving carte blanche is not always a good thing. Moreover, once it has obtained the information, nothing precludes the RCMP from keeping it, as long as the reasons for doing so are written down.

The government has tightened up the definition of warrant. In the previous version, it could have been an outstanding warrant for any offence punishable under federal law by imprisonment for five years or more.

Now the definition stipulates that there will be a regulation stating exactly what crimes are involved.

As to the second point, the commissioner also expressed serious reservations regarding how long the information could be retained. The seven day period during which the RCMP and CSIS may keep the information is excessive; 48 hours would be adequate. The fact that the RCMP and CSIS can keep this information indefinitely is of concern. There must be limits.

But, neither of these changes was made. As a result, on November 1, 2002, the Privacy Commissioner issued a press release regarding Bill C-17, in which he described the changes as being minor. He said:

—with only minimal and unsatisfactory changes in the replacement legislation, Bill C-17.

According to the commissioner:

The provision in question, section 4.82 of both bills, would give the RCMP and CSIS unrestricted access to the personal information held by airlines about all Canadian air travellers on domestic as well as international flights.

He added:

—my concern is that the RCMP would also be expressly empowered to use this information to seek out persons wanted on warrants for Criminal Code offences that have nothing to do with terrorism, transportation security or national security.

In Canada, it is well established that we are not required to identify ourselves to police unless we are being arrested or we are carrying out a licensed activity such as driving. The right to anonymity with regard to the state is a crucial privacy right. Since we are required to identify ourselves to airlines as a condition of air travel and since section 4.82 would give the RCMP unrestricted access to the passenger information obtained by airlines, this would set the extraordinarily privacy-invasive precedent of effectively requiring compulsory self-identification to the police.

The changes that have been made in this provision in the new bill do nothing to address the fundamental issues of principle that are at stake.

The Government now proposes to have regulations limiting the Criminal Code offence warrants for which the RCMP will be searching. But this does nothing to address the fundamental point of principle that the police have no business using this extraordinary access to personal information to search for people wanted on warrants for any offences unrelated to terrorism.

As well, in the new bill the Government has removed the “identification of persons for whom a warrant has been issued” as a “purpose” for accessing passenger information under the legislation. But this is meaningless—indeed, disingenuous—

For all these reasons, we oppose this bill. Ever since the original bill was introduced, we have been speaking against a number of provisions which are still included in the bill. Despite all our efforts to improve the provisions that posed a problem, these remain unacceptable to us.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today on Bill C-17. It is quite a coincidence, since I am currently renewing my home insurance policy and on the issue of liability insurance, my contract stipulates:

Terrorism: an ideologically motivated unlawful act or acts, includingbut not limited to the use of violence or force or threat of violence or force,committed by or on behalf of any group(s), organization(s) or government(s) forthe purpose of influencing any government and/or instilling fear in the public—

It also points out that the policy does not provide coverage for:

—any loss or damage caused directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, by terrorism or by any activity or decision of a government agency... to prevent, respond, or terminate terrorism.

So, this is not covered by the insurance policy. Later on, I will link all of this to my speech on the public safety bill now before the House. Following the attacks on September 11, 2001, people were understandably afraid. However, I think that some people want to exaggerate the attacks or the threats of terrorism. The government as well as other groups and businesspeople are using the events of September 11, 2001 to scare people. They want the public to remain nervous and distraught. Legislation like Bill C-17, the Public Safety Act, 2002, can only instill more fear in people. That is not showing them much respect.

As I said earlier, and as everyone knows, the United States was hit by deadly attacks on September 11, 2001. The response came rapidly and there was an unprecedented movement to mobilize in the fight against terrorism.

The Bloc Quebecois joined this immense mobilization. We condemned the attacks and, in the hours that followed, we offered our cooperation to the federal government with respect to emergency measures for dealing with the situation. But at the time, we had asked—and that has remained our position for all the bills that have been presented—that there be a fair balance between freedom and security.

Unfortunately, the federal government has failed, and the measures it has proposed have not maintained this balance. They go even further in my view; they scare people. That is particularly true when it comes to bills such as Bill C-17, which we are debating today.

The first bill presented in response to the terrorist attacks was Bill C-36. We agreed to adopt an antiterrorism bill, but Bill C-36 did not strike the right balance between freedom and security, something we are still looking for.

The terrorist attacks and threats reached an exceptional level and created an exceptional context. This happened in a certain country, at a given time, during a given period. That does not mean there will not be any more, that there will be attacks here in Canada or in Quebec.

Of course, acts of terrorism can happen every day. Nonetheless, there have not been very many here over the past three decades, so why frighten people and hold them hostage?

I repeat, Bill C-36 was an exceptional measure in response to an exceptional situation. That is why the Bloc Quebecois asked the government to include the sunset clause my colleague was talking about earlier, for the legislation to cease to be in effect after three years unless the House decided otherwise.

The Bloc Quebecois asked for an automatic review every year, by the Standing Committee on Justice, or after the tabling of a report by an independent commissioner, to remove the pressure that people feel and perhaps prevent escalation or trade-offs. Unfortunately, these amendments were rejected. There are other problematic elements, but those are the main ones.

Then came Bills C-42 and C-55 and the current version, Bill C-17; the public safety bill that now before the House.

Claiming to be trying to further improve security, the government then introduced Bill C-42 on public safety. From the beginning, the Bloc Quebecois was against this bill, because some of the proposed measures really went too far and the connection with terrorism was rather tenuous. For example, the new power being given to ministers regarding interim orders was way too arbitrary. As for the military security zones, they were ill defined and their implementation left the door wide open to much abuse.

This bill was then replaced by Bill C-55 and later on by the bill before us today. Unfortunately, these two bills did not manage to maintain the necessary balance either.

Considering the two bills that the federal government introduced on terrorism, we have to recognize that the government has failed in its fight against terrorism. The proposed measures fail to maintain a fair balance between freedom and security. And what is worse, the government is trying to justify the extraordinary measures by the fight against terrorism, while some of those measures are neither necessary nor justifiable. We need only think about the use that can be made of the information obtained under Bill C-17, with respect to people for whom a warrant has been issued. If we oppose Bill C-17, it is mainly because we strongly believe that it is a bad bill, but it is also because we recognize that the government's behaviour in the fight against terrorism is a failure.

We voted against this bill at second reading. We will do it again this time, as we still oppose this bill. From the beginning, we have opposed many of the provisions that are still in the bill before us, despite the fact that we tried to move amendments and made many efforts to understand and refine the first bill.

Despite all the efforts that we made to soften the impact of the problematic clauses, these clauses remain unacceptable for the Bloc Quebecois and its members.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will start by saying that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville.

Before getting into Bill C-17, I want to commend the excellent work done by our critic, the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, who has expended considerable talent and unbounded energy to uphold the principles of the Bloc Quebecois. We were in favour of fighting terrorism, but not at the cost of ignoring or shoving under the carpet the rights and freedoms of Quebeckers and Canadians.

It is interesting to note that immediately following September 11, the Bloc Quebecois offered its cooperation. On the principle, the vast majority of Quebeckers agreed that terrorism had to be fought, but not at any cost. Otherwise, the terrorists would have won, since we would ourselves have curtailed the principles and rights and freedoms of our democracy.

That is why, when the initial bill, Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism bill, was introduced, we stressed that this balance between the fight against terrorism and respect for rights and freedom was lacking. That is why we started by proposing several amendments.

We asked the government to include a sunset clause. We felt that the legislation was too rough, too tough in certain areas. This was understandable, given that the events had just taken place, but we believed that in time, it would be desirable that the legislation be reviewed because many of the provisions would no longer be necessary. We were ignored and we expressed our opposition to the bill.

This is the third version of the second major piece of legislation arising from the events of September 11: Bill C-17. First, there was Bill C-42, and then Bill-55, and now, when it is unclear how much longer the House will be sitting because of the political context, Bill C-17. We have before us a bill which, it must be noted, is an improvement in a number of regards on Bill C-42 and Bill C-55.

To us, these are gains which can be described as a partial yet major victory that everyone will be very pleased with. I would be remiss not to mention that one of the main irritants in Bill C-55 was the ability the government was giving itself to designate controlled access military zones. There have been two versions, but initially the government gave itself the power to declare that any zone, anywhere in the country, was a military zone under the complete control of the government, without any protection for rights.

We said that this made no sense whatsoever. Even at the time of the War Measures Act, it was Quebec's attorney general who was supposed to ask that the federal government get involved. It is absolutely unacceptable that the federal government should decide on its own initiative to establish these zones anywhere, without being asked to do so by the attorney general of the province concerned. This could have led to all kinds of abuses.

We said no and we protested strongly. Finally, the government heard us and we now know that orders in council be will made if need be. We will monitor each of these orders, but the general measure is risky and thus put aside. This is for the better.

Another one of the major provisions we strongly opposed was the exchange of information. Part of the exchange of information provided for in the original bill affected travellers. However, it was finally recognized that the need for this came from the demands of the United States concerning aircraft flying over its territory.

With a lot of debating, we finally got—and this too was a given—specific legislation on this issue, with a number of limited powers, although some are still too broad, but at least there are limitations.

Let me say that, if controlled access military zones have totally disappeared from Bill C-17, we find ourselves in the reverse situation on the issue of exchange of information, that is, the transfer of information to the United States, which was limited to some extent, will now be broadened.

Indeed, under Bill C-17, those who travel by plane must provide more information than had been required by the Americans. This information is available to the RCMP and CSIS, and they both reserve the right not to destroy it. We asked for a 24-hour timeframe.

We think that it is utterly unacceptable, since it means that some people will be followed, even though there are no longer on a plane, because we want to know how they get from one airport to another.

Again, this applies only to people travelling by plane. However, I think that we must reaffirm the right of law abiding citizens to leave the country without having their every move scrutinized, as it would be in a police state.

We are also against the interim orders, which will allow ten ministers to make decisions regardless of their compliance with fundamental legislation. They have 15 days to do this. It seems to us that the verification process could be done before that. We proposed flexible solutions for that, but they were rejected. It makes no sense to us.

Our concerns with Bill C-55 and Bill C-42 were heard, and it seems to me that everybody benefited from that. Our requests must also be heard. Unfortunately, we are disappointed that the amendments that we proposed in committee were not accepted. Therefore, we will have to vote against this bill.

We believe that it would have been possible not to sacrifice our rights and freedoms. The Privacy Commissioner, who was criticized in other circumstances, spoke out against this situation.

Since he was so close to the Liberal government, we can use what he said when he expressed serious concerns about the provisions dealing with the sharing of information.

We will vote against this bill. We would have preferred to do otherwise, but it is impossible in the circumstances.

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I too rise to speak to the important matter of Bill C-17.

As you know, I will start by blaming the Liberal government once again for this gag order which limits the time allotted to parliamentarians to discuss such a crucial and important issue.

The legislative agenda has been rather thin lately in this parliament. There have been persistent rumours that the current session could end early due to the upcoming change in leadership on the other side, in other words the current Prime Minister will have to step down in favour of the member for LaSalle—Émard.

It would appear as a result that the government wants to push ahead with several bills and move the agenda faster. After unduly delaying bills and regulations, it now wants to make up for lost time. Attempting to make up for lost time by ramming through a bill as important as Bill C-17 is going a bit too far.

I would like to share an experience I had recently in Taiwan at a world convention in Taipei attended by about 23 countries. The conference was entitled “Democratic Pacific Assembly”. Those 23 countries tackled the fundamental issue of security and freedom of speech.

The motions that were unanimously passed during this important meeting said that the balance between freedom and security had to be maintained and that the unfortunate events of September 2001, that are starting to be distorted, should not serve as an excuse for legislation muzzling hard won freedom of speech.

Unfortunately, Ottawa does not seem to want to respect this fundamental balance between freedom and security. We must say yes to security, but not at the expense of our rights and freedoms.

We have seen what has been happening in the United States over the past two years. Freedom of speech has virtually been eliminated from the airwaves, especially on television; we saw the Bush administration trying to take over the media, use propaganda and justify its behaviour. We are all aware of the situation in which the U.S. administration and its president, Mr. George Bush, now find themselves, especially with their involvement in the war in Iraq. Again, in the United States, freedom of speech has been severely curtailed. Unfortunately the media capitalized on a show. Today, the show is over but the current president and his great thinkers are still trying to justify his actions by using the word terrorism.

With such a formidable neighbour, the Canadian government must be wary of adopting some of the provisions found in Bill C-17. If our neighbours south of the border go too far and get carried away on the issue of terrorism, we are not out of the woods.

As we all know, parliamentarians have been considering this important piece of legislation for two years now. Bills C-36, C-42, C-55 and C-17 were all brought before the House. Unfortunately, whatever the number of the bill is, it still contains the same deficiencies.

Let us review the history of this bill. The first bill introduced in response to the terrorist attacks was Bill C-36. Although we supported at first the need to pass anti-terrorism legislation, we thought that the federal government's proposal did not strike the proper balance.

At the time, the Bloc Quebecois thought that Bill C-36 did not effectively balance freedom with security issues. When Bill C-36 was first introduced, the attacks and the terrorist threat were at an all-time high and had created an exceptional climate. But since then, a lot of water has gone under the bridge.

I remember taking part in the debate on Bill C-36. I warned the government about the three-year limit. Things were changing so fast that we thought we could not pass legislation on such a crucial issue and maintain it for three years without reviewing and adjusting it.

If, at some point, the Canadian government needs certain tools to address a particular situation, we can provide these tools. However, the situation may change, and this is why we would like the legislation to be reviewed and reassessed every twelve months to see if it meets the expectations of the public and our security needs.

Members will recall that the Bloc Quebecois asked for a sunset clause to be added to this bill so that it would cease to be in effect after three years, unless the House decided otherwise. Parliamentarians always have the power to amend an act if the situation warrants. However, we do not know what the future holds for us. We are all trying to stamp out terrorism. We believe that laudable efforts have been made so far, and this is why we think that a piece of legislation as crucial and important as the one before us today must be reviewed periodically.

Regarding this particular piece of legislation, we also asked that it be reviewed automatically each year by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, which would be the same thing. Every year, it would be referred to the committee for review. This means that members from all political parties gathered around a table would have a good look at it and would be able to make recommendations in light of the current context. Again, our suggestion was rejected.

Furthermore, it was also said regarding this bill that the Minister of Justice could withhold information normally accessible under the Access to Information Act, without any safeguard provided. This is also very dangerous. The bill will be reviewed only in three years' time. I have talked about this before. The Minister of National Defence will be able to intercept international communications simply by sending a written request to the Centre. He will not even need a judge's authorization.

In this regard, allow me to say that I am very concerned, especially after the events of August 14 and 15 when a power failure hit Ontario and the southeastern United States. We know that the person who was supposed to have all the information and to reassure the public, the Minister of National Defence, made a statement. All he did was further confuse matters. The sources were contradictory. Just imagine if the present Minister of National Defence were to intercept international communications. How could we take him seriously when he interpreted this information and particularly when he explained what was really happening in a given situation?

Continuing with the history of the public security bill, there was first C-42, then Bill C-55 and now Bill C-17. One thing is clear. The weaknesses that were part of the initial bill are still present in Bill C-17 and I will explain why.

Claiming to be trying to further improve security, the government introduced Bill C-42 on public safety.

As soon as the bill was tabled, our party stated its opposition once more, finding that some of the proposed measures went much too far, and that their link to terrorism was rather tenuous. The government must not be given an opportunity to abuse the situation.

The collective memory of Quebeckers has not faded away. We remember very clearly what happened during the October crisis in 1970. We all must remember it, because if we give police and military powers to this government, we know they may be abused. Consequently, when faced with such situations, the collective memory of Quebeckers reminds us of the sad events of October 1970. Today, in 2003, I want to reintroduce them into the debate because one never knows what may happen when a context changes.

In my opinion, that is the reason this bill tends to draw links—often very tenuous ones—with terrorism. I will return to the whole issue of the powers the bill would give to the RCMP and CSIS.

Bill C-55 was then replaced by Bill C-17, which is now before us. Unfortunately, these two bills do not come any closer to achieving the necessary balance. And yet that is the fundamental principle and we mention it constantly in these debates. The position of the Bloc Quebecois is to strike a fair balance between liberty and security at all times, and especially to prevent possible abuses by the Canadian federal government.

We have had some victories along the way during the debates to come up with new legislation. In Bill C-17, we see that the controlled access military zones that were mentioned in Bill C-42 have been withdrawn. That was a considerable victory for the Bloc Quebecois and that is why we keep on hammering away with these fundamental principles.

As I said earlier, it is terrible that the government is using a closure motion once again to prevent us from exercising our rights, presenting our point of view, and trying to eventually convince the Liberal government of the flaws in Bill C-17.

I would also like to address the powers that will be conferred upon the RCMP and CSIS. We are aware of the case of Maher Arar—on which my colleague from Mercier has been asking questions earlier. This Canadian was apprehended by the Americans when in the United States and was subsequently returned to his former country.

Judging from the RCMP's behaviour, if it had more power given to it, this would lead to almost an automatic connection between the RCMP and the Americans. This lays open to question the rights of citizens, of the people of Canada and Quebec.

So those are the powers. The bill includes provisions which confer extended powers on RCMP commissioners as well as the director of CSIS, in connection with the gathering of information on air passengers from the airlines.

The more we travel, the more we will be under surveillance. That is what this means. The more often we take a plane, the more the RCMP will interfere in our business. The more often we visit countries likely to have links with countries that have links to terrorists, the more likely the RCMP is to interfere in our business. It is unacceptable that so much power is being given to the RCMP, particularly when we have seen how it acted in this matter, which is getting so much media coverage and attention in the House.

We tried to amend this bill so as to limit the powers relating to retention and use of the information gathered in this way. We often hear reference to someone “flagged by the RCMP”. What does that mean? It means that the RCMP collects information on such individuals, based on the assumption of a link with terrorism. This information is on file with the RCMP and can be used at any time in order to violate the freedom of members of the public. It is really dangerous to give so much power to the RCMP with Bill C-17.

We also wanted to ensure that the information gathered would be destroyed within 24 hours of landing unless there were any suspicions about the passenger. What point is there in keeping information? But no, the time limit will be seven days. In other words, during those seven days the authorities are in possession of information on an individual which can lead to digging deeper into that person's life, far more than to just find out about his past, his background, when he takes a plane.

The current Bill C-17 includes such abuse, and these are fundamental democratic issues. All the government is doing is imposing Bill C-17 on us. It is forcing the bill on us and gagging us so we keep quiet. If this is democracy, we have a real problem.

I want to say once again that all the members of the Bloc Quebecois oppose this bill. We opposed various provisions in the initial version that are still found in this bill, a few of which I mentioned. Despite all the efforts to mitigate the problematic provisions, we continue to find them unacceptable.

I will repeat once again that it is time for the government to backtrack, and not adopt this bill this afternoon, during the vote to be held shortly. This is a serious situation given the bill's failure to ensure a balance between freedom and security. This is the most important point. If we have to give up rights and freedoms for improved security, why did we fight for them in the first place? In many countries, people are still fighting for freedom of expression.

I am reminded of my trip to Taiwan. In the neighbouring country, the People's Republic of China, there is no such thing as freedom of expression and respect for human rights. Yet we live in an age where information circulates freely. Furthermore, the Americans may promote free speech, but free speech that is controlled and planned by the Cabinet of the United States President, George Bush.

Given all these situations, Bill C-17 must include the desired amendments to maintain a balance between freedom and security so that Quebeckers and Canadians can live freely in the years to come.

Points of Order

[Paul Bonwick, Liberal, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask for your indulgence for a couple of moments while I ask you to rule on a point of order arising out of debate this week on the third reading of Bill C-36.

I would ask the Speaker with all due respect to rule out of order the third reading of Bill C-36, based on the fact that it was brought forward to the House under what I believe to be false pretences.

On June 10 and June 12 of this year while we were debating at committee Bill C-36, better known as the library and archives act, several members of the committee took exception to certain provisions that were included, namely provisions that touched on the Copyright Act. It was more of an omnibus piece of legislation rather than simply the library and archives act.

Based on an agreement with members of the opposition and myself, we were informed that those provisions with respect to the Copyright Act would be removed and that we would simply be voting on and dealing with the library and archives act. That agreement was made on June 12. The committee was reconvened by the chairperson on June 17, at which point the chairperson said “We have before us an amendment to clause 26, which is the copyright section, which has been presented by the parliamentary secretary acting for the government”.

The parliamentary secretary clearly stated on June 17:

Mr. Chairman, I was involved in all of the discussions of this committee. One of the reasons why we decided that we would remove them is, as you remember, the outburst of our Alliance colleagues who, at one point, accused us of turning this bill into an omnibus bill. They were very uncomfortable with us including these sections. So in an attempt to come up with a consensus, with the agreement of the department, I more or less gave my word to the committee members who are not here today that these clauses would be removed.

The parliamentary secretary made that commitment to our committee, the permanent members of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. With that word we went back to our ridings once the House rose for the summer.

The chair on June 17 called the committee back and asked it to vote clause by clause on Bill C-36, the library and archives act. After great debate it was decided, with the support of the parliamentary secretary and with the support of the chairperson, that they would allow those to remain in, regardless of the fact that the promise had clearly been made and was read into the record on the previous sitting day.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that you rule to disqualify this particular piece of legislation as it stands right now and refer it back to committee. Let the committee do the job that it is charged to do. Let us fulfill our responsibilities as members of Parliament and have a good, frank, open discussion about this and do not allow either the department or the minister to bring this bill forward under these kinds of pretences.

Public Safety Act, 2002

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend my colleague from Churchill for speaking out so eloquently and forcefully against Bill C-17 on behalf of the New Democratic Party caucus.

I would like to make a brief comment on the destructive impact of the government's approach to civil liberties since September 11, 2001.

We recently learned that the oversight body of the RCMP that has the responsibility for ensuring that Canadians who have concerns about the abuses of power by the RCMP has said that it is powerless when it comes to dealing with abuses under the anti-terrorism legislation, Bill C-36. Shirley Heafey, the head of the RCMP civilian watchdog, the RCMP Public Complaints Commission, said:

We can't (investigate) unless there's a complaint, and even if there is a complaint...we can't see the information. So for all practical purposes, there's no civilian oversight.

Just today a group of prominent Canadians in the international civil liberties monitoring group have called for an independent inquiry into the serious abuses around the deportation of Maher Arar to Syria by the United States and the possibility that there may have been collusion with the RCMP. There was no oversight body whatsoever on that. The minister responsible for the RCMP stonewalled and covered up on that issue as well.

I remember when Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism legislation, was passed. We were promised that there would be full and effective oversight. We were told there would be no problem. New Democrats rejected that bill then as an assault on our civil liberties just as we are rejecting Bill C-17 today as an assault on our civil liberties.

I wonder if the hon. member might comment with respect to the total absence of any meaningful safeguards in Bill C-17.

Public Safety Act 2002

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part today in the debate on Bill C-17, the Public Safety Act.

Before dealing directly with the topic at hand, I will say that I am always surprised by some of my colleagues' comments. One would be inclined to think that such remarks could only come from my right, but I am always surprised to see that members of a political party that gave us the charter of rights can be so far to the right.

That is what we have been hearing so far. Some members have a wild imagination and assume that acts of terrorism could potentially be committed. Such a line of thought leads inevitably to legislation that tramples on individual freedoms, perhaps creating a system where the rule of law no longer applies, but where a police state will look after the affairs of the state.

Using assumptions that have not been validated and that are quite often unfounded is embarking upon a very slippery slope.

With regard to Bill C-17, one must remember that we have had debates at one time or another, and not necessarily on similar bills. As my colleague across the way said a few minutes ago, there have been many versions of this bill. Whether Bill C-36, Bill C-42 or Bill C-55, which evolved into Bill C-17,the one before us today, there have been many changes, some substantial, others relatively minor.

My colleague across the way said a few minutes ago that he was sorry the bill had not been passed and had not taken effect all at once, the way it was. On the contrary, delaying the bill has made it better, and ensured that it will take into account a context that is not what it was when the events of September 11, 2001 occurred. Some improvements were made; I will list them in a moment.

First, we have to remember that the events of September 11 were major ones. My point is certainly not that we should stop fighting against terrorism. However, we believe that the response and the fight against terrorism must take into account the democratic values that are dear to Quebeckers. We think that the bills passed in the House of Commons should reflect the balance we seek between freedom and security.

This is exactly where the problem lies. Bill C-17 is a direct attack against the most democratic rights of the citizens, their right to a certain amount of freedom. This was said not only by the Privacy Commissioner but also by several organizations.

First, it was clear that we we had to oppose Bill C-36. The Bloc Quebecois asked the government to include a sunset clause so that the act would no longer be operative after three years, except if the House decided otherwise.

Furthermore, the Bloc Quebecois also asked that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights automatically review the act each year, following the tabling of a report by an independent commissioner.

Why did we ask for both an annual review of the act by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and a sunset clause so that the act would no longer be in force after three years? We did not want the principles set out in Bill C-36, and today in Bill C-17, to become permanent changes.

Inasmuch as we feel the bill interferes with individual freedoms, to a certain extent, the question we must ask ourselves is the following: do we want to limit those freedoms permanently?

If that is not what we want, if the answer is no, any member who believes in the rule of law, who believes that this must be reflected in the legislation we pass, will want this legislation to be exceptional and temporary.

The three-year sunset clause, the fact that the law would have expired after three years and be reviewed each year by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, would have highlighted its exceptional—the exception being the events of September 11—and temporary nature, with due consideration of the fact that we want to have a society that respects the democratic values of freedom and justice.

That is what the amendments to Bill C-36, as proposed by the Bloc Quebecois, would have permitted. Unfortunately, they were rejected.

The Bloc also proposed debate on other issues, for instance, the definition of a terrorist act, which is very broad and which could lead to problems for groups or individuals who are not terrorists. They also wanted the Attorney General to be able to withhold information by not applying the Access to Information Act. And, as I mentioned, there would be no further review of the bill for three years.

There was a problem with that. Naturally, the minister proposed some amendments. But in our view these amendments were clearly inadequate. I repeat that there was considerable debate. We presented solutions and constructive proposals related to limiting the scope of the legislation and including a sunset clause. That would have enabled us, perhaps, to have voted in favour of legislation that would have been exceptional, but not permanent, in order to respect the democratic values so cherished by Quebeckers.

And then came Bill C-42, which gave new powers to ministers, such as adopting interim orders. In our opinion, that left much too much room for arbitrary actions. In particular, the military security zones were very poorly defined and their implementation left the door wide open to many abuses.

First, it is important to point out that, the way the bill was drafted, a military security zone could well have been declared on Quebec's territory without even consulting the Government of Quebec. The federal government, using an interim order, could have established a military security zone in Quebec, without even discussing it with the Government of Quebec.

In certain ridings, for instance that of my colleague from Jonquière, we could have ended up with these totally undemocratic zones. It hearkens back in a way to our experiences during the October crisis, when the federal government had no qualms about invoking the War Measures Act. With this provision of Bill C-42, the federal government could have designated certain parts of Quebec as military security zones, without consulting the Government of Quebec.

Thanks to the efforts of the Bloc Quebecois members, we were able to sort this out and avoid a recurrence of such a situation. If we had simply counted on the federal members across the way, I am not sure there would have been much awareness of this concern. So, with Bill C-55, we were able to avoid military interventions and the designation of these zones, in Quebec in particular.

This takes us to Bill C-17. It is important to go over the previous bills in order to grasp the scope of Bill C-17. We moved from C-42 to C-55, and now to C-17 which is, basically, just a new version of C-55, the Public Security Act 2002. I would remind hon. members that our interventions on Bill C-55 addressed three main themes.

The first was the military access zones, which we felt ought not to be created. Naturally, in Bill C-17, the federal government made a commitment and withdrew the provisions on these, and as I have said, that was a victory for the Bloc Quebecois.

The second point we addressed in what was Bill C-55 at the time was the interim orders. This bill still contains provisions on these, although the time frames for tabling in Parliament and approval by Cabinet have been shortened considerably. The main problem remains unchanged, however: the absence of any prior verification for compliance.

I have reviewed the work done by the Bloc Quebecois in connection with Bills C-42 and C-17. At no time has there been any provision for prior verification for compliance. Is it possible for these orders not to be implemented until it has first been verified that they do not violate the Charter of RIghts and Freedoms and its enabling legislation?

Whereas in Quebec we have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms and in Canada we have a Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we think that before using these interim orders that we feel are exceptional measures, there should be prior verification for compliance. That is one of our proposals. Prior verification for compliance with the enabling legislation and also with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, should be considered. This would allow us to protect freedoms and the democratic values that drive Quebec. Unfortunately, there is no provision to that effect in Bill C-42, C-55, or C-17.

Finally, one of the important aspects that the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel emphasized in the past concerns the issue of exchanging information on airline passengers. The proposed changes when the bill was previously reported, are largely insufficient. The framework of the proposed provisions goes well beyond the fight against terror and the provisions do not strike a fair balance, as I said earlier, between security and privacy. It is important to note that the bill will give more power than ever to the RCMP and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service in terms of gathering information.

On this side of the House, we think it would have been important to amend this bill to limit as much as possible the powers related to keeping and using the information thus gathered. We believe that these powers have to be limited because as long as we live in a democratic society, the rule of law must prevail and we must not lapse into a police state. The more the powers of the RCMP and CSIS are reinforced, the more likely this unacceptable scenario becomes.

Given the numerous comments by the Privacy Commissioner, who was very critical of this bill—and I will end here—it is essential to achieve this balance between security and freedom.

Naturally, we are not against fighting terrorism. However, as the leader of the Bloc Quebecois indicated shortly after September 11, the response must respect the underlying democratic values of Quebeckers. The proposed solution must also reflect the seriousness of these events.

When I listen to a few colleagues on the other side of the House, but also those to my far right, I notice the numerous attempts to use the events of September 11 to establish, in Canada, permanent legislation solely to ensure safety. The resulting mechanisms pose a real threat.

In closing, I want to say that, of course, we oppose Bill C-17, although it is better than the bills previously introduced. If the bill can be improved, we will be happy to support it. However, it is important that Bill C-17 take into consideration our underlying democratic values.

[David Collenette, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, memories fade very quickly around here because right after the terrorist attacks there was unanimity in the House that we had to deal with our domestic security and we had to work with our American friends to improve border security and other security for the continent. That is why Bill C-36, despite some considerable debate and some initial flaws, was ultimately passed.

Then we required the second bill, as I mentioned. The fact that this is the third manifestation of that bill shows that we have been serious in trying to reflect the concerns of members of the House.

However it has been more than two years since the terrorist attacks and we are still saying that we need more time. At a certain point, if we are going to govern we must make a decision. The government will be proud to defend that decision to the electorate when we go to the electorate, perhaps early next year, because we believe this is in the interest of national security.

I should just say to my friends in the Bloc, who were arguing a few minutes ago, that we actually adopted two Bloc amendments: one that clarified our intention that the minister would be the one carrying out the requirements of the security measure wherever the minister considered it necessary to do so, and that is not a delegated provision; and a second amendment to make the definition of transportation security applicable to the proposed section 4.81, Transport Canada, as well as the proposed section 4.82, the Solicitor General.

In other words, we had this debate. The Bloc members came forward with a couple of amendments, and congratulations to them, because they made very good points. We were moved by their arguments and accepted their arguments. However the time for arguments is over. It is time now for action.

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

My colleague from the Alliance Party seems to be talking out of both sides of his mouth. On the one hand he said that his party is for Bill C-17 and “we should move on with it” and then he said that this motion, a legitimate motion in the standing orders, should not be used.

There is a time for decision in all parliamentary debate. We believe that the decision is now. In fact he seems to agree with that because we should move on with it.

Let me remind the House that this was a bill that came here originally as Bill C-42. Then Bill C-44 was hived off and then it became Bill C-55 and then Bill C-17. The bill has been before the House for a year in one form or another. It has been debated at second reading nine hours and 35 minutes, three hours and 15 minutes at report stage, three hours and 25 minutes at third reading. All told, there have been 38 hours and 15 minutes of debate. Also the committee studied it from November last year until May 2003.

It seems to me that we have had a lot of debate. I say to my friends in the Alliance that this is not a matter for procedural argument. We are dealing here with a crucial piece of legislation that flowed from the terrible attacks on September 11, 2001. We had Bill C-36 and then we had the bills which I just referred to, ultimately becoming Bill C-17.

It is absolutely crucial in the interest of national security and in dealing with the North American security environment, that this bill be passed. That is why the government House leader correctly in my view has brought forward the motion today.

Library and Archives of Canada Act

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for this opportunity to add a few thoughts in the closing minutes of debate on Bill C-36.

I wanted an opportunity to rise on behalf of our NDP heritage critic, the member for Dartmouth, to make a summary point as we close the debate on Bill C-36 today. Many members have spoken about the relative merits of the bill. It is my task today, in the few minutes I have left, to point out some observations on behalf of the member for Dartmouth.

In 1998 Dr. John English, a former Liberal member of Parliament, conducted a study regarding the fate and the future of the National Archives and the National Library. That study caused the member for Dartmouth to do some investigating. What she found has not been articulated clearly here today. It is that the sorry state of our National Archives and our National Library is due in large part to the budgetary cuts of the Liberal government during the 1990s. It cannot be ignored and we would be remiss if we left these facts out.

The National Archives budget went from $65 million to $44 million from 1993 to 1997. The library's budget went from $47 million to $27 million. These are huge cuts. The fat was already trimmed and we were cutting deep into the bone. All of a sudden archivists had to decide which historical collections of national significance were going into the blue box and which they could afford to preserve. At least the archivists had that flexibility; the National Library did not.

The National Library, by an act of Parliament, must collect two copies of every publication published in Canada. It has no option to cut its acquisitions or do away with some of its archives. We have told it to be the national repository of all of our books, reports and magazines.

Therefore, the only place it could cut was its physical plant. It wound up that it could not even afford to fix its leaky roof, as sad as that sounds. It could not afford to fix the bursting water pipes. It could only try to move its collections around so the water did not drip through the roof onto its valuable documents.

I point this out to illustrate that this is the manifestation of budget cuts that were so deep they were irresponsible because our national treasures suffered. Our national history suffered as a result of what I consider to be the cutting, hacking and slashing of budgets without consideration of how those cuts manifest themselves. It is more difficult to see in social programs, et cetera, when those cuts take place, although no less dramatic.

It is easy to see when a simple thing like fixing the roof was impossible and the water poured in on our National Library. Some 25,000 works were damaged to the point where they could not be used or had to be thrown out. Even the attempts to improve the plant by building a new preservation centre in Gatineau has been only a band-aid solution. These cuts have meant fewer archivists and without archivists no one takes care of our archives.

It was that point that I wanted to make in these final moments of the debate. The ruthless cutting, hacking and slashing during program review by the member for LaSalle—Émard, the former finance minister, is directly responsible for the crisis that our National Archives and National Library find themselves in today. The merger in Bill C-36 is being proposed originally by the Liberals as a cost saving measure. We support this bill only because it may lead to a better treatment of our national treasures in both these institutions.

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

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of the debate on Bill C-36, we had reached an agreement and the members of the Bloc Quebecois were of the opinion that clause 21 had to be removed. We thought that it should not be in there.

The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage is presently reviewing the copyright issue. We believed then, and we still believe now, that this clause should have been removed and included in the Copyright Act.

This is one of the reasons why we oppose this bill. This clause does not belong there. It does not need to be included and it should be discussed in the context of the copyright issues. This bill, which will be referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, is very important for the Bloc Quebecois.

This is why there was no fundamental discussion on this. Since an agreement had been reached to exclude it, we did not go into it in great detail.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-36, which was introduced by the government.

Since Bill C-36 was introduced, to create the merged Library and Archives Canada, I have been wondering about the government's real goals as it tries determinedly to merge these two institutions, which have two distinct missions and two distinct approaches.

Why is the government going against the trend in most industrialized countries such as France, Belgium, the United States and Germany, which are determined to have these two institutions remain autonomous and retain all their prerogatives?

I listened to the witnesses; I asked questions; I expressed my concerns, but my questions were not answered.

There must be something fishy going on. Let us look more closely at this bill and let us consider the real issues that are present or absent.

There are issues of transparency and integrity, for example, regarding the appointment of the Librarian and Archivist and the members of the advisory council. There is the issue of broadening the mandate of this new institution by adding the interpretation of history. There is also the copyright issue.

Although the Bloc Quebecois has pointed out a number of flaws in this legislation, the government has decided not to correct them. Why is this government so stubborn in refusing amendments that would have ensured transparency in the appointment of the Librarian and Archivist of Canada? This appointment will be made by the governor in council, with the agreement of the heritage minister therefore.

Why are there no benchmarks in this bill with regard to this appointment, that would have provided some guarantee of integrity and transparency? Why does the responsibility of the standing committee on heritage not have oversight on this appointment?

Absolutely nothing in this bill reassures us on this aspect. We in the Bloc Quebecois also feel that it is unacceptable to create an advisory council whose members are selected and appointed by the heritage minister. These will be political friends and close relatives, who will be beholden to the people who chose them.

We will never be able to tell the people of Canada and Quebec that this committee is independent from political authorities. To say so would be to put one's head in the sand. It would be taking voters for uninformed people. When appointments are made and those who make them do not even know under what prerogatives, or whether appointees have expertise in an area related to the new structure—will they be archivists, librarians, we do not know—how can this be expected to work?

People do not like to be duped. It is well know that those appointed are forever indebted to those who appointed them. That is why politicians have lost a great deal of credibility with the voters.

Increasingly, this government is ignoring transparency.

With this bill, the institutions in the new organization are becoming politicized. This is very serious.

First, there is the political appointment of the deputy head. And there are political appointments to the new advisory council. The Bloc Quebecois asked that these appointments be handled by an independent committee, as in Quebec.

The ruling party is no longer the PQ but the Liberal Party, and it is not changing how this operates. We relied on transparency. I think it was the hon. member for Verdun—Saint-Henri—Saint-Paul—Pointe Saint-Charles, who was a minister in the Quebec government, who developed this process.

The greatest concern with this bill is that the government is expanding the mandate of the new institution to include a reference to the interpretation of Canadian history. This new mandate is contrary to the neutrality objectives historically pursued by the National Library and the National Archives.

The government is trying to impose its own vision of history. Like most Quebeckers, including the current Premier of Quebec, we in the Bloc Quebecois believe that Quebec is a nation with a culture of its own. Even the new Premier of Quebec, Mr. Charest, shares that belief.

In his statement under Standing Order 31 today, my colleague from Saint-Jean said that it has been six years since the death of Mr. Bourassa, the former Premier of Quebec. The day after the Meech Lake Accord failed, in June 1990, he said in a solemn and historic speech:

English Canada must clearly understand that whatever happens and whatever is done, Quebec is and always will be a distinct society, one that is free and quite capable of taking charge of its own destiny and development.

There are a thousand and one ways to interpret history; everything depends on what a nation such as Quebec experienced. For instance, when we talk about the War Measures Act in 1970, the perception of events is completely different depending on whether one is from Quebec or Canada.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage talks about Canadian culture. To her, anything from Quebec's culture is in fact a regional element of Canadian culture. It is very worrisome to give a mandate that would allow Canada's history to be interpreted, when we know how the minister thinks and what Quebec culture means to her. Her goal is Trudeau-style nation building, which seeks to instil a sense of belonging, and which reflects only one history and vision of Canada.

The mandate of Library and Archives Canada is not to interpret history. Its mandate is to make historical information available, not to create its own version to propagate across Canada.

It is important to see to what extent in this bill the government ignores the way political institutions make appointments. Given that this type of bill will not be reviewed regularly each year, we should include clauses that would ensure transparency and integrity in the people who will be appointed.

What is more, historical facts must not be interpreted by people who are appointed. Historians, documentalists and archivists are not there to interpret history. Their job is to make available to the people of Canada and of Quebec reference documents to enable them to have a relative view of what occurred at a specific point in Canadian history.

How do we ensure that the transfer of documents is going to be respectful of factual integrity? That is not in the bill. Who will be responsible for assessing the pertinence of documents? Here again, there is nothing in the bill.

As well, they want to include the concept of promoting and understanding heritage. That is a pretty tall order. If anyone is capable of explaining to me what that mumbo jumbo means and how it will be accomplished, they are one up on me.

We are headed for an administrative muddle. The new entity ought not to be responsible for this. It is not the responsibility of archivists, documentalists and historians. It is not part of their mandate, nor of their training. This is a concept of managing the Canadian mind. This bill is an expression of the vision of the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

We cannot subscribe to this initiative, which is aimed at adding this duty to the position of Chief Librarian.

Hon. members need think no further than what has happened with the mandate of the CBC and the notion of selling Canadian unity. Where is there any journalistic freedom in that? It will be tested out with these orientations.

Time moves on, but nothing changes with this government. There is talk of encroachment, lack of transparency. The intent with this bill is for it to recover its vision of what politics needs to be. This is not what politics are all about. I am from a province, a riding, and a city whose inhabitants demand information from me. They want me to assure them that what is going on in Parliament is being done in an atmosphere of transparency.

Unfortunately, with Bill C-36, I could not assure my constituents that, in future, those in this new entity will be beholden to someone.

I do not understand why they are creating this new structure. The people who will be working within this structure do not have the same mission and the same training. They are serious professionals. These professionals are having a political burden imposed on them, and it is not part of their mandate.

This legislation lacks transparency and in no way guarantees any respect for those who will be working within this institution and those wanting access to it.

The Bloc Quebecois will never support the government's new, soon to be adopted, vision concerning the role of archivist and librarian.

In this bill, the government does not guarantee any transparency. The Bloc will vote against this bill, since our party opposes the merger between the National Library and the National Archives of Canada. The Bloc Quebecois considers that the enlarged mandate of the new institution is aligned with Canadian propaganda goals, and that the new mandate will interfere with the neutrality the library and archives have always displayed.

The Bloc Quebecois demands that any reference to the interpretation of the history of Canada be removed from the mandate of the Library and Archives of Canada. This is part of a Trudeau-style nation-building effort. This bill seeks not only to merge two entirely different institutions, with two different missions, but also to turn the history of Canada into a propaganda tool.

The Bloc Quebecois will never allow any federal entity to interpret Quebec history. It will never allow the Canadian government to disseminate biased information. Those working at this institution will not do so by choice; they will be forced to do so by law. We will never allow that to happen, because we have too much respect for our ancestors and others who built Quebec.

As my colleague from the Conservative Party was saying, one has to know where one came from to be able to go where one wants to go. It may not be the exact same words that he used, but it means the same thing.

I come from a family where the historical values of the Quebec nation have been omnipresent since before I was born. These values were passed down orally by my ancestors, from generation to generation.

It is true that something is missing right now in our schools in terms of getting our young people interested in our history. However, this new entity will never allow that to be done in a transparent way.

We know that history is a work in progress. Yesterday's history is not today's history nor is it tomorrow's history, but yesterday's history must stay the same. We must use it to go forward today and into the future. However, if we allow these people to interpret it, we will never reach our goal, and that is what we are here for. Therefore, we insist that our history truly reflect the facts.

In closing, I will reiterate that the Bloc Quebecois opposes this bill and will vote against it at third reading.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Resuming debate on Bill C-36. Does the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis want to respond to the comments by the hon. member for Jonquière?

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of speaking on the contents of the bill but it behooves me to address some of the remarks that some colleagues have made, no doubt genuinely. At the same time I think the record has to be put straight as to what happened in the committee.

I heard things here which seemed to imply that there was some kind of collusion or some underhanded practice that led to the fact that clause 21 remained in the bill when there had been an agreement between the parliamentary secretary and certain members of the opposition to delete it in committee.

I know this agreement did take place. I know the member for Kootenay—Columbia and the member for Fraser Valley were part of it. I know my colleague from Vanier on this side of the House was also part of it. Therefore definitely there had been discussions leading to the decision to delete clause 21. This was done in a very genuine effort to ensure that Bill C-36 would pass clause by clause without any problem. Therefore the agreement was definitely there.

When the committee meeting took place, and I happen to know it because I was chairing the committee, I would like to point out for those members who feel that something untoward or underhanded took place, that was definitely not the case. What unfortunately happened, and I guess we can search ourselves and decide that in the future we should be more thorough when making agreements of this nature, was that it was done at the last minute as Parliament was recessing. The flaw in the agreement was that not all other members on the Liberal side were party to it. As well, replacement members on the committee came in to fill in for the quorum who were not party to the agreement.

Therefore when the discussion took place as to the removal of clause 21, I remember clearly that I put on the record that there had been a prior agreement. Therefore, the question was quite clear to all members that there had been an agreement. At the same time certain members, and I remember my colleagues from Parkdale--High Park and from Verdun—Saint-Henri—Saint-Paul—Pointe Saint-Charles, who had not been part of it argued very strongly that they could not be bound by an agreement of which they were unaware. They felt extremely strong about retaining clause 21 within the bill.

Therefore we have to accept that those members who had not been part of the agreement, and maybe we could search ourselves and say that it was a big flaw in the agreement and obviously it was, decided for their own sake they wanted to preserve clause 21 within the bill and they argued passionately about it.

The member for Parkdale—High Park and the member for Verdun—Saint-Henri—Saint-Paul—Pointe Saint-Charles happen to know the subject extremely well. They spoke with conviction, and with eloquence about the reasons why they felt clause 21 should stay. What happened was they convinced the other members who really were replacement members and who did not know much about copyright legislation. They were swayed by the arguments.

When the vote took place the majority voted in favour of keeping clause 21 within the bill.

It is unfortunate the way it happened. I feel a lot of sympathy for the members who feel they were let down: the members for Kootenay--Columbia, Fraser Valley, Jonquière, and all the others who were at the committee and felt there was an agreement for the removal of that clause. I sympathize with them. I realize how they must feel about being let down in a process where they felt they had a commitment that the clause would be removed.

On the other hand, we also have to recognize that the members who were not part of that agreement had a genuine reason for defending their viewpoint and a democratic right to put across their point of view. What happened was they were obviously convincing enough that the majority of members accepted what they were putting forward and voted with them to leave the clause in.

I feel a particular sympathy for the member for Perth--Middlesex, who is a new member of the House. He came as the only representative of the opposition at the time, because the member for Jonquière had left. He could have broken the committee meeting and stopped it right away by leaving. I made clear to him that there was an agreement, but explained the circumstances that some members were not part of it, and he hesitated. He could have left and to his credit he decided to stay so the meeting could continue. If he had chosen to leave, the clause by clause would have been suspended immediately. Again I have much sympathy with him because by his staying, the meeting carried on and the majority voted to keep the clause in the bill.

These are the facts. The record shows this. I would like to confirm here and now that there was no malice of forethought and no intent to deceive. It was unfortunately one of those tacit agreements, which was made on the fly at the end of a session, and as events show, not very well made because all the members were not part of it. This is why I wanted to stand and put the record straight. I would not like to leave an impression that any of the members had anything to do with anything that was unfair or untoward.

I have chaired this committee now for several years. One thing we have tried to do is reach consensus in a fair and open matter and we have tried to understand one another's point of view. I think we work extremely well together. I regret this circumstance took place, because whether we like it or not, it leaves a bad taste. I hope in the future, when such agreements are made, we tie up the loose ends on all sides so we avoid the circumstances that occurred in the committee.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member from the Bloc Quebecois for her kind words about my colleague, the member for Dartmouth. I am sure that she will appreciate this speech and the support of all the members here.

I too appreciated the opportunity of working with the member for Dartmouth and wish to recognize her particular expertise that she brings to the House in the area of culture and heritage which is rare. Rare because of the first-hand experience she brings to this place and also her integrity and commitment to thoroughly reviewing all issues.

With respect to the question of the mandate in Bill C-36, I know that my colleague from Dartmouth would have said that what we have in the bill is not perfect. All the questions have not been answered. We are not absolutely 100% sure how the mandate of the new merged institution will be interpreted and whether or not the agency created will be above any political influence.

Our party came to the conclusion that when all is said and done what we have here is better than nothing and we have the hope of creating that kind of necessary institution. What we have is a bill that will help us keep valuable works and historical documents, and help protect the rights of creators.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the member for Mississauga South.

I want to begin my response by suggesting that whenever it appears that the government of the day has interfered with the work of a committee and has not respected the wishes of a standing committee of this place then it is a matter of concern for all of us. It is a theme that has run throughout these last couple of years in Parliament and one that we have raised on numerous occasions.

The member for Mississauga South will know that on a legislative matter that we held near and dear, Bill C-13, dealing with reproductive technologies, there was great concern expressed on our part and by other members about how the government refused to accept amendments made in committee by all parties and in fact interfered with that democratic process by not including those amendments in the legislative proposal.

However, as in that case, today we must make a judgment about the merits of a bill versus some of the changes that we wanted to see that are not there.

It is important to recognize, in the context of Bill C-36 when dealing with clause 21, that there was in fact agreement in committee to have this clause removed. I am not so sure who bears all the brunt of the blame for the fact that it is not there.

I was not in the House when the bill was debated at report stage, but I understand the fact that action was not taken on clause 21 was largely a result of human error and a lack of vigilance on this question. The members of the government side in committee did not move the motion pursuant to clause 21 when it was the appropriate time to do so, so it did not happen there. When the bill came to the House for report stage, the Official Opposition, who felt strongly about this happening, did not move the elimination of clause 21 in the House.

As a result, by human error and not deliberate intention, this initiative was not taken. The fact of the matter is that we now have to decide if we are going to hassle about that. Are we going to haggle over those terms and that history, and lose a bill which would make an important contribution to our society? Are we going to go forward and at least see that the merger between the National Library of Canada and the National Archives of Canada is allowed to take place? We must have a public policy vehicle to ensure that the work of those who create, the writers in our society, those who write stories based on personal histories and who pursue letters and documents from our archives are able to do so knowing, and that their work is secure and the documents are safe in a physically sound building?

The bottom line comes down to how we sort through that. For our part, we have decided to support the bill, despite any shortcomings with the bill and despite lack of assurances that in fact adequate funding will be there when this merger takes place.

We must give it a chance. We have to listen to the voices of those experts who have been sounding the alarm bells for years about leaky roofs, yellowing paper, and the loss of valuable documents because we did not have the physical capabilities to keep them.

This gives us an opportunity to do what is important in that regard and it also gives us a chance to redress a problem that was created with the last copyright legislation when we did not take into account the whole question of unpublished works and copyright protection.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-36. I want to indicate at the outset that I will be the first member on the opposition benches to speak in favour of Bill C-36.

I want to express the support of all of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party for the bill. It is not unequivocal support. It is not enthusiastic support. It is support based on the need to proceed with the long overdue provisions outlined in Bill C-36, weighing of course the need to do further study and consultation against the need to resolve a very problematic area in terms of Canadian heritage.

I speak also on behalf of my colleague, the member for Dartmouth, the critic in our caucus for culture and heritage. I want to reflect for a moment on her hard work as critic in this very important area and as a hardworking member of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

We are all absorbing the news today that the member for Dartmouth may not run again in the next election. She may return to working as a playwright. That is something we can understand and appreciate, especially given the number of excellent and wonderful works written by the member for Dartmouth. At the same time we have to express our regrets and disappointment at losing a member of such calibre. I know I speak for colleagues on all sides of the House when I acknowledge the good work of the member for Dartmouth and wish her well in all her future pursuits.

The member would want me to stand here today and give her support to Bill C-36 and to say that she had listened very carefully to the many witnesses called before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, had heard their concerns and had listened very carefully to their solutions. She would want me to stand here today and say that she is confident that the committee has created a bill that satisfies most parties and protects the rights of creators.

Of course, that is why essentially the New Democratic Party wants the bill to pass before the House rises or prorogues. It is our view that hopefully the bill will create a wonderful institution that all Canadians can use to discover our history and our stories.

I was fortunate almost 20 years ago to spend some time as the minister of culture and heritage in the Manitoba government. It was a time that gave me insights into the role of libraries in our communities and into the role of our provincial archives in Manitoba. I grew to appreciate the work of our creators who through words create stories and who tell our history.

I recognized at that point the absolute importance attached to places that store those stories and keep them for generations to come. I recognized the absolutely important work of the government to preserve the infrastructure, to preserve the system and to ensure that we have storehouses of knowledge. Like all my colleagues, I came to value the storehouses we have of creative input from previous generations of Canadian writers, politicians and citizens.

This piece of legislation brings those two important storehouses together, the National Library of Canada and the National Archives of Canada. It is a very important initiative. We believe it will actually help make material more available to Canadians. It will give us the means to share the stories of those who created them.

There has been a lot of discussion this afternoon about another aspect of the bill and that pertains to copyright provisions. Some would argue that because of that particular clause, the bill should be sent back and that matter resolved. We would argue that there is merit to proceeding with this bill including that clause because it does address an important concern of writers and those who create material.

It is our view that this bill will redress a wrong done to creators in a previous section of the Copyright Act, section 7. This has created a lot of controversy, more controversy in fact than what the original change to unpublished copyright did in 1997. I want to say this clearly because this is where we differ certainly from the member who spoke for the Conservative Party. We believe absolutely in protecting the work of creators. The NDP will support any measure that protects the creators of work and their heirs.

I want to refer to one of the witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage on June 3 this year. Janet Lunn, past chair of the Writers' Union of Canada stated:

A writer's legacy to his or her family is the copyright in the works created during his or her lifetime. Often a writer is able to leave little else. We don't as writers have large estates or stocks and bonds. Usually our works are our legacy.

These are important words in the context of this debate. As has been noted, in 1997 the perpetual copyright on unpublished works was changed to match copyright on published works, that being 50 years after the death of the author. We all know that a change like this cannot take effect right away, so works from authors who had died since 1948 were automatically protected for a 50 year grace period. Works from authors who died before 1948 only received protection for a five year transition period before implementation.

When a similar change was instituted in the United Kingdom, a 50 year transition period was considered fair notice. Turning to the United States, that country chose a 25 year transition period.

Again I want to refer to the words of Janet Lunn, who I think explains the unintended consequences of such a short transition period:

Works not published by the end of 1998, even if they have been published since, will come into the public domain on January 1, 2004. This means that while an author who died on January 1, 1949 is protected until 2048, an author who died one day earlier, on December 31, 1948, is protected only until January 1, 2004.

Five years may seem to be a sufficient length of time to publish material even though it can take that long or longer to convince a publisher of the worth of the material. This five year transition period meant a publisher would only enjoy the benefits of publishing material until January 1, 2004, frankly a ridiculously short period of time to recoup the publishing costs of a book. That is why other jurisdictions that removed perpetual copyright on unpublished works a decade or so ago ensured that a longer transition was planned. Our oversight in 1997 needs to be redressed before the end of the year. I would hope that everyone in the House would agree that one day should not create such a discrepancy.

The unintended consequences of the bill are also cause for concern. One is that our authors do not have to publish their books in Canada. Neither do publishers. Other jurisdictions have lengthier copyright protection than we do and if unpublished work is not protected here for a fair amount of time, authors or their publishers can take that work out of the country for publication. That clearly would be a tremendous loss to our heritage.

Furthermore, this section of the legislation will not make it impossible for researchers or genealogists to use information from archives or collections. They were able to do that under the perpetual copyright provisions pre-1997. We all benefited from the books, essays, plays and movies created from people looking at old letters and papers that had never been published. As always, the concept of fair dealing still applies. This means that people can use copyrighted material for research and for review but the right to publish material in its entirety remains with the copyright owner until copyright expires.

I think that helps to explain our position with respect to that contentious section, but I want to return for a few moments to the main purpose of this legislation. It goes back to the whole notion of the merger.

Normally we in the NDP are not that big on mergers, especially when it comes to financial institutions, but in the case of the National Library of Canada and the National Archives of Canada, we recognize that it makes absolute sense. Both of the institutions under discussion are charged with maintaining the documentary heritage of our country. It is an important and costly exercise.

All of us know that under the mandate of the former finance minister, the member for LaSalle—Émard, the budgets of both institutions were slashed in half. Many priceless collections had to be turned away because staff could not process or store them. Other material had to be destroyed because the physical plant could not be maintained.

It is absolutely critical that we see this legislation through, that there be adequate resources and funding for the newly merged library and archives for capital improvements to their facilities. The ultimate purpose of the bill is to provide a safe and secure home for our books, letters and other papers that tell our history. If we do not take these measures to protect them, we will be destroying our own history.

If this bill is to be more than a paper-pushing exercise, it has to be accompanied by new funding. We know we cannot demand that the government make guarantees of adequate funding in this legislative process. It is not part of the bill per se, but we can certainly say to the government that we expect and hope that the question of adequate funding would be dealt with concurrently, that the pursuit of this legislative proposal would be done in tandem with the whole question of adequate resources.

To protect and archive material is a very skilled job. We want to make sure that the people who remained at these institutions after the staff cuts of the 1990s and the budget trimming should not fear for their jobs now. We owe those staff a debt of gratitude. Despite all the trials and tribulations, with all the problems of operating with a weak infrastructure, with an inadequate physical plant, with all kinds of problems that threatened the existence and the preservation of these important materials, they stuck with it and managed to keep the institutions functioning and the collections preserved.

In conclusion, I wish to recognize the work of the staff at the National Archives and the National Library. Their perseverance and experience will make this merger work and will help create a new single library and archives of which all Canadians will be proud.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of my colleague in connection with his response.

Do you think, under Bill C-36, that this new entity will have guidelines allowing each province to retain its own entity? As the Bloc Quebecois always says, and as you have acknowledged, Quebec is a distinct society. In giving this new structure the mandate to interpret history in general, do you think that your province of Alberta, or Manitoba, or any of the provinces of Canada will have their place and protection for their history in their image, that is to say not interpreted according to the vision of this new entity within the mandate it has been given?

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I intended to speak briefly on this and talk about the insertion of clause 21 and the effect it has on the legislation, but after listening to my friend from Drummond who raised a number of very interesting topics, I probably will comment on them briefly also.

First, in relation to the answer she gave to the member for Jonquière, let me say that I agree with her fully. If there is going to be a board appointed, certainly it has to be a qualified, independent board. Too often we have seen people appointed to boards and agencies because of who they are rather than what they can do or what they can represent; if one is a friend of a minister or whatever, one gets an appointment. That is not the way it should be unless the people are qualified. That is the name of the political game: people like to appoint friends. That is okay if the friends are qualified. Nobody will argue if that is the case, so let us look forward to who will be represented on the board, if we ever get that far.

However, the bill before us, Bill C-36, is a bill that would integrate the National Library and the National Archives of Canada. Both are separate now but would be brought under one entity to be known as the Library and Archives of Canada.

Originally a lot of people looked at this and said it probably makes sense. However, in analyzing what is really happening here, a number of concerns or doubts are raised. The member for Drummond really laid on the table the concerns that a number of people in different parts of the country face, especially in the older parts of the country.

Having said that, before I get into that aspect of the discussion let me say on clause 21 that what has happened here is something we do not see too often. There is an old saying that there is honour among thieves, and I guess that usually there is honour among politicians. When an agreement is negotiated, as was mentioned earlier today by one of the Alliance members, we expect people to live up to that agreement. The heritage committee basically agreed to take out clause 21. Everyone else seemed relatively happy with the remaining legislation, so they were very surprised that a meeting was called which conveniently happened at a time when the majority of the people there were not only Liberals but Liberals with vested interests, and we saw the clause put in.

This is the interesting question to ask in relation to all of this: Who was pressuring whom to have that clause put back into the bill? Unfortunately it seems completely and utterly out of place; there is no reason for it except that somebody for somebody's own interest wanted the insertion, and some members, being pressured, tried to make sure it was done. It had to go in somewhere so I guess the only piece of legislation that was coming in the near future anywhere near the type that could incorporate such a clause was this piece of legislation.

The clause itself basically states that for unpublished works the law limited the rights of the author's estate to 50 years after his or her death, plus a six year window for the estate to either publish or communicate an intention to do so. It seems pretty reasonable. That was before 1997. An estate had perpetual copyright for posthumous unpublished writings.

The new bill adds between 14 and 34 years of copyright for unpublished works, but only for those authors who died between January 1, 1930 and January 1, 1949. When one starts setting parameters, one raises suspicions. Of course it is called the Lucy Maud Montgomery clause, simply because the estate is pushing for this recognition and Ms. Montgomery, of course, died in 1942.

There are a couple of interesting comments from well known people in the literary and historical field. Mr. Donald LePan, president of Broadview Press, is on record as saying that these copyright provisions in Bill C-36 represent, in his words:

...one of the several significant threats on the current horizon for the public domain. Copyright restrictions in Canada are already more stringent than they need be. It is crucial that we resist further incursions into the public domain.

Therefore, why would such a clause be inserted in a bill such as this? The question is, who will benefit from the provisions of Bill C-36? It is often claimed that authors as a whole benefit from extending copyright provisions. In practice, however, it is typically only a handful of the best known and most enduringly successful writers whose heirs benefit from such provisions in any significant financial way. Very few people, or the estates of very few people, would benefit from such a clause being inserted in the bill. Unfortunately, it puts a bad taste on the piece of legislation and how all of this transpired.

Having said that, we will deal with that when the time comes to vote. Maybe between now and the time we do vote on the bill there will be some method to deal with this, even though nobody made an amendment to the bill simply because a guarantee was given at the committee level that this clause would be taken out. Perhaps the minister, in her wisdom, or the parliamentary secretary who today seems to slam the door shut on any further changes, will find some mechanism to deal with this unfortunate intrusion into the bill.

But even in regard to the bill itself, when we start to look carefully at it, I think we have to ask a number of questions that were raised, especially by the member for Drummond. She talked about interpreting Canada's history and she expressed a major concern about the interpretation of the history of her own province. As we know, Quebec is not just an ordinary province. It is one of the major sections of the country and has a unique history, that of the early days of Canadian history, the days of settlement, long before the west was discovered and before anyone heard the expression “go west, young man,” which I think is probably an American expression. I visited one of the old forts in Saskatchewan. I was taken there because it is an historic site. It is 150 or 200 years old. To the people who took us there, it was extremely historic.

I come from a province which was settled by the Norse in the year 1000. We celebrated the millennium of Newfoundland and Labrador only three years ago. In the western world from a European settlement perspective, Newfoundland and Labrador is by far the oldest, settled part of the new world. When it came to a permanent, established settlement, in 1497 John Cabot landed in Newfoundland and shortly afterward we had an influx of European fishermen. In fact, when Jacques Cartier sailed up the St. Lawrence River, he visited a little community in Newfoundland, Renews, and took on water. That happens to be my hometown, where I still live. John Denis, who visited in 1502, I believe, just five years after Cabot, wintered his boats in that same harbour.

Newfoundland and Labrador being the gateway into America, not only was it the first point of landing from a settlement perspective. Let us look at recorded settlement. Because of the way in which the British and the French operated, recorded settlement was only created or historically noted when a king or queen would send out somebody to establish a formal settlement, and then we would say that the first settlement in Quebec, the first settlement in Newfoundland, the first settlement in Nova Scotia, et cetera, was a certain place, but that is not the case.

Long before any established settlement was formally recognized by the king or the queen, we had many settlements all around our coast because people went there to fish. They left some of the big ships. They jumped ship and they settled in the little communities. Even though they were not allowed to, they came and stayed and the communities grew. We had significant community growth in eastern Canada long before the days of these formal settlements. History books say that John Guy established the first settlement in Newfoundland in 1610 with the colony at Cupids, but we had people living in parts of Newfoundland and a number of families in communities 110 years before that.

We have to be very much aware of our history or we can lose it. I mentioned earlier that Quebec is unique. It certainly is, because it was the French and the English who really founded this country. We could argue who did the most exploring or whatever, and people could make arguments for both sides, but they played a tremendous role in the development of this country. The two founding nations set up the eastern part of the country in particular, but not only did they establish and settle there, they moved westward. They moved down into the United States. North America generally benefited from the establishment of solid settlements by these two great founding nations.

The development of settlements in this country and the work that was done by these French and English pioneers should not just be lost by lumping together today's sort of perspective of Canada. It is not that way. Certainly from a Newfoundland and Labrador perspective, we cannot forget our part because our province also is unique. When we talk about lumping the history of Canada into one avenue, one of the concerns is that we wonder sometimes how much of the real history is going to be lost. We did not become part of Canada until 1949. Long before that, the Province of Newfoundland, as it was called, made a significant contribution to the North American scene, and not only to the North American scene but to the international scene. Whether it was in trade or in representing our country generally and our hemisphere in the first and second world wars, we were there as a country.

I believe that Newfoundland is the only country in the world that ever gave up its own independence freely. We wonder sometimes if we did the right thing or not; however, there is always the second time around.

We cannot in any way, through the establishment or the integration of any of our agencies, lose the true perspective of Canadian history, whether it be the Province of Quebec with its uniqueness, as I have mentioned, or whether it be the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador with its uniqueness in culture and history.

We must ensure that these things are properly recognized. We cannot overlook the involvement of the provinces in all this. We cannot lose control of our own perspective. People have a way of changing things to suit themselves, which is always a concern. History as written should be history as created. We do not see a lot of that. We see too many convenient interpretations of Canadian history.

We do have concerns with the legislation. We have particular concerns with regard to the games that are being played to insert clause 21. This might be a good time to take our time in dealing with the legislation and to fully analyze and debate how the history of our great country is being and will be recorded and preserved.

As individual players are we getting a fair share and a fair shake? Are we being recognized for our contributions and, more specifically, are the provinces and our founding fathers being accurately recognized for their contributions to our country?

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill, which puts into concrete terms the government's idea to merge the National Library and the National Archives.

We in the Bloc Quebecois are opposed to this idea, because it is part of this government's centralist mind set and its propagandist obsession. The wider mandate of the new institution runs counter to the historical neutrality of the National Library and the National Archives.

The Bloc Quebecois demands that any reference to the interpretation of the history of Canada be removed from the mandate of the Library and Archives of Canada. This is part of a Trudeau-style nation-building effort and, as I said, seeks to instill a sense of belonging based on a single version of the history of Canada.

The purpose of Bill C-36 is not only to merge two totally different institutions—with two different missions—but also to transform the history of Canada into a veritable propaganda tool. For these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois opposes Bill C-36.

Speaking of propaganda, I would like to speak out against an initiative by the people in this government that happened a few weeks ago. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration provided all federal MPs with copies of a document prepared for CItizenship Week, which was October 13 to 19, 2003.

The document, entitled “Planting the Seeds Activity Kit”, was sent to teachers of human and social sciences for grades 4 to 6, ages 9 to 12. Another, made up of four course outlines and complementary activity kits for grades 7 to 10, is called “Cultivate Your Commitment to Canada” and is intended for students in social studies, history, civics and citizenship classes.

Notwithstanding the avowed motives of the minister and the pedagogical quality of the documents, it is of concern to us to see the federal Liberal government interfering directly and unashamedly in an area that belongs exclusively to Quebec and the provinces: primary and secondary education.

The federal government's determination to ignore Quebec's prerogatives in this area is of great concern to me, as a parliamentarian and also as a citizen. The contemporary history of many states is replete with examples of government strategies aimed at controlling education. It would be naive to think that this is not evidence of an obvious desire to minimize, if not totally deny, any desire for a Quebec identity.

That said, the federal government's idea of interpreting history as it sees fit creates fears for the worst.

Let us look at the scope of this bill more closely.

It creates one single entity: the Library and Archives of Canada, resulting from the merger of the National Library and the National Archives of Canada.

Consequently, the government is establishing a new agency whose head is called the Librarian and Archivist of Canada.

The most serious concern about the mandate this agency will have is this idea of interpreting Canadian history. This is the core, the key element of this bill. Let us not forget that interpreting Canadian history was one of the key messages of the government when the bill was tabled in the spring. Can the words library and archives be easily confused?

I consulted reference books to get a better feel for the meaning of these two words. According to the Petit Robert , library means a room or building containing a collection of books for consultation.

It also means an organization with various services, including a reading or consultation room.

The Petit Larousse states, under library: room or establishment, public or private, where a collection of books, printed material, manuscripts, is kept, consulted or loaned.

As for the word archives, the Petit Robert give the following definition: a collection of old documents, put together and filed for historical purposes.

According to the Petit Larousse , it is a collection of documents relating to history belonging to a corporation or administration. Reference is also made to hospital archives, which are described as all documents pertaining to patients. The word also means the place where such documents are stored.

Finally, the archivist is the person who maintains the archives, a specialist in the conservation, filing, and study of archives, historical documents.

When we are aware of the difference between archives and library, it is difficult to understand why the government would want to have everything in the same place.

My hon. colleague from Joliette gave an example of the kind of documents that could be kept in one place but not in the other. Documents pertaining to cadastre record properties with buildings on them or under cultivation, with the names of owners. Clearly this type of record has its place in archives, but not in a library.

Other countries have understood this distinction and maintain it. Among them are France, Germany, Belgium and our neighbour to the south, the United States. These countries make a distinction between the archives and a library network. The institutions each have their own existence and administration.

Can you tell me why there is a wish to merge the National Archives and National Library here, when many countries such as France and the United States are doing things the way we do right now, with two distinct institutions? There is some intent behind this that is not very admirable, in my opinion.

I warn the government against trying to merge these two bodies, because it will cause great confusion about the mission of each of them, and about the administration.

Until now, no one has answered our questions about why they want this merger. Is there one member who can answer the question? Perhaps the parliamentary secretary, during questions and comments, will be able to find the time to answer me and explain why they want to merge these two entities, when in other countries this is not being done? That includes countries with solid reputations, such as France, Germany, Belgium and the United States.

Is it a question of saving money? If so, I would like to know how much.

I am afraid, though, that there is some trickery, some propaganda strategy. The grand new mission for Library and Archives Canada will be nothing other than a way for the federal government to satisfy its appetite for more visibility. Its hidden agenda is to use this new organization to promote its vision of Canada, its own vision of Canadian culture and history.

For a good forty years, the federal government, led by the Liberals, has been trying to rewrite history in its own way. We are particularly sensitive to this.

My hon. colleague from Trois-Rivières recently wrote:

For the past 40 years, the federal government has been refining its vocabulary and clarifying concepts. For the past 40 years, the central issue in this debate is Quebec's current and future status. Some, such as myself, promote the idea of a sovereign Quebec in charge of its destiny. We are sovereignists. The other side promotes the idea of a Quebec with permanent status as a Canadian province, along with the other nine provinces and three territories.

Why not call these people provincialists instead of the more noble term federalists, a concept that has no place in this debate, since it implies the distribution of and respect for the powers of all members of a federation and a federal government, and for their power relationship.

Here, clearly, are two doctrines concerning the potential and scope of Quebec and its people.

On the one hand, the provincialists in both Ottawa and Quebec City want Quebec confined to provincial status and therefore diminished, and its government kept it under Ottawa's thumb and therefore inferior. The provincialists see Quebec merely as a Canadian province equal to all the other provinces, whose collective influence ends at the Canadian border.

On the other hand, the sovereignists see Quebec as master of its own destiny and a participant in important international debates, enriched by its francophone and Latin differences. They see a Quebec that is open to the world and contributing to it as a developed country.

But back to the debate, we in the Bloc Quebecois believe, along with the people in my riding, that there is indeed a Quebec nation, one with its own culture. We are far from the definition given by the Minister of Canadian Heritage, to whom Quebec culture is nothing more than a regional dimension of what is termed Canadian culture.

This is the context within which we must approach this bill. It is the vehicle of the famous concept of “nation building”. That is the reason behind the notion to integrate, by merging the two entities, a centre for the interpretation of history.

This government has its own way of rereading historical events and of deforming reality. The Minister of Canadian Heritage gave as her definition of the Fête nationale du Québec that it was the holiday of all French Canadians. Nothing could be more wrong. When we go back in history, French Canadian was the term applied to the residents of Lower Canada, the Quebec of today. From a religious feast day, we have moved on to a civic holiday, one that is more inclusive and reflects the contribution of all the cultural communities to the life of Quebec.

The minister's comments provoked anger and indignation on the part of Acadians. June 24 is the national holiday for Quebec and Quebeckers. Acadians have their own national holiday on August 15. It is this type of conclusion and distortion of history that may result from this bill as it stands.

When the bill was introduced in the spring, the Minister of Canadian Heritage indicated in a press release that “the purpose of the bill is to give Canadians greater access to their history and culture”.

There are a thousand and one ways to interpret the history of Canada. Based on what a nation such as Quebec experienced, perception of events may differ.

I believe that Library and Archives Canada is not entitled to use its own interpretation of the history of Canada in order to promote and try to convince the public of the historical value of this version. The mission of Library and Archives Canada is to make historical information available, not to create its own version and distribute it across Canada as propaganda.

Asking the newly formed Library and Archives Canada to interpret history so that it is better understood by Canadians shows a great deal of arrogance by the federal government.

In conclusion, the Bloc Quebecois believes that the broadened mission of the new institute only fuels the propaganda for Canadian unity. The new mission goes against the principle of neutrality that the Library and Archives Canada always sought. The government is trying to impose its own view of Canadian history. The Bloc Quebecois will do everything it can to maintain the exceptional reputation that Library and Archives Canada always had.

The Bloc Quebecois is against broadening the Library and Archives Canada mission and the interpretation of Canada's history as proposed by clause 6 or clause 8.1( e ) and ( i ). It is designed for nation building à la Trudeau and to foster a sense of belonging to a single version of the history of Canada; a version that would effectively deny the aspirations of the Quebec nation and its great ability for achievement. For these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois will vote against this bill.

[Jim Abbott, Canadian Alliance, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in response to my colleague from the Bloc, it seems to me that would be the most honourable thing for the heritage minister to undertake at this particular point in time.

She did make a commitment, and we received that commitment in good faith from the parliamentary secretary for whom I have the utmost respect. She is an honourable member of Parliament, and I have the utmost respect for her, but that does not change the fact that the heritage minister was unwilling to follow through on the commitment that she asked the parliamentary secretary to make.

The honourable thing for the heritage minister to do would be to send the bill back now to the heritage committee so that clauses 21 and 22 could be handled in the most appropriate way. I understand that there is a time constraint; I understand December 2003. I understand those things.

The problem has been created by the heritage minister who has been distracted with her leadership campaign. She has no idea of what is going on in her own department.

Bill C-36 should go back to the heritage committee. Although we all have distinctly different points of view, there is goodwill on the committee. We work well together under the leadership of our chair. I am sure we could resolve this. Surely there must be an honourable way to do this rather than having this legislation forced through in a very shabby way.

[Jim Abbott, Canadian Alliance, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to state at the outset that the parliamentary secretary is an hon. member of this House and any of my comments should not be inferred as to suggest otherwise. That having been said, I find a tremendous difficulty in that the entire House of Commons, whether it is in this chamber or in committee, works on negotiation between members. When that negotiation happens, there is an assumption on the part of both parties I am sure that once the persons negotiating arrive at an agreement, the agreement will be fulfilled. Clearly that has not happened in this instance.

What has happened is that the committee was overtaken by the member for Parkdale—High Park and others who are concerned about seeing that this particular omnibus provision was included in the bill. This was totally outside any agreement that had been made by us at that time.

We should be focusing as well on when the committee hearings actually took place. The Speaker might not be aware that the committee hearings actually took place after the House rose for the summer recess. When those committee hearings took place, the understanding on the part of the Bloc member, on the part of the Conservatives and certainly on the part of the official opposition was that the agreement that had been entered into by the parliamentary secretary on behalf of the heritage member and on behalf of the department officials was that those clauses would be removed.

There is goodwill that exists around the body of this bill and what this bill is actually about. There is goodwill that exists on wanting to get on with modernizing the library and bringing forward a proper archival situation in Canada. Because of that goodwill and because of the value of this bill, we did not see any reason to be worried about what would be happening at committee.

As I said directly to the parliamentary secretary, I understand that the events at committee ended up overtaking her and overtaking the commitment that she had made. To be very generous, I might even suspect that the member for Parkdale—High Park might not have been aware that this commitment had been made. Let us make that assumption, but that does not absolve the parliamentary secretary or the Minister of Canadian Heritage from the fact that a commitment had been made to members of her party, to members of the official opposition, indeed to all members of the House who were concerned about this bill.

This is scandalous behaviour. It ends up undermining the ability of us to do business. It means that all the suspicions and the worry about what the real meaning is of ministers and all the paranoia that there frequently is around the parliamentary process end up coming into reality.

The reality is that the heritage minister and her spokesperson, the parliamentary secretary, have not been prepared to follow through on a solemn commitment that was made in this chamber. Let me be very clear and totally transparent. This means that there will be a question in the minds of all parliamentarians when they receive a commitment from a parliamentary secretary on behalf of a heritage minister as to whether they actually have the intent to follow through.

We were dealing with Bill C-13 earlier today in the House. The health minister came to this House and overturned the work of the committee on Bill C-13. This is very common. It is an unfortunate happenstance because parliamentary committees should be independent. Parliamentary committees should be able to make changes to government legislation. But it is very common that ministers will come to this place after those changes have been made by committee and will overturn the changes. That is the reason I raised the example of Bill C-13.

We could go down a whole list of legislation where this has happened. Therefore, with the greatest respect, I say to the hon. parliamentary secretary that it is simply not genuine to say that the committee is master of its own destiny and therefore she and the heritage minister are incapable of making the change. I am sorry but that does not fly. That is simply not a valid argument.

I suggest what has happened is the heritage minister with her own leadership aspirations has taken her eye off her legislation, which is in front of the House now, and has basically left the parliamentary secretary hanging out to dry. Once again, on the issue of copyright law, the heritage minister has walked away from her responsibility and we have bad law. This was an omnibus bill that should never have been an omnibus bill.

Clause 21 should never have been included in the bill, as I said in my question to the parliamentary secretary. I have the Copyright Act in my hand right now. I understand the copyright law. It was very clear that there had to be changes in the Copyright Act for Bill C-36 to go forward. That is simple and very straightforward. What was not needed was Clause 21. Clause 21 in this bill is the opening up of copyright legislation.

She will know, as a member of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, that starting next week the standing committee will be briefed by parliamentary officials on a review of the Copyright Act. We will be briefed on Tuesday and again Thursday.

There is a whole situation around copyright law that desperately needs changes and I will address couple of them in half a second. The parliamentary secretary knows that. I do not know what went on behind the scenes. I do not know how in the world we ended up with clause 21 being surreptitiously put into the bill. It basically takes a current issue, a vital and important issue to certain copyright holders and advances it ahead of other people who are very concerned about clauses and provisions in the Copyright Act.

I draw to the House's attention subsection 30.8(8) and subsection 30.9(6) of the Copyright Act. This is the basis of me saying once again that the heritage minister has done a bad, totally inadequate, flawed job of copyright revision. By allowing these changes in Bill C-36, by surreptitiously putting them into Bill C-36, by falling back behind the rubric that committees are masters of their own destiny, once again she has done a totally inadequate job. When the new Prime Minister takes over, it will be very surprising to see if she manages to maintain her position as Minister of Canadian Heritage because she has absolutely dropped the ball on this issue as with many others.

In the case of sections 30.8 and 30.9 of the Copyright Act, the relevance here is that the actual provisions that had to be changed in Bill C-36 are in proposed section 30.5. We are talking about things that also need changing and we are very close: 30.5 versus 30.8 and 30.9.

What desperately needs changing is what was inserted into the bill back when we were in committee work in 1997. At that time we were looking at ephemeral recordings. That is when a radio station ends up making a recording for absolutely no reason other than a technical ability to more easily bring programming to air. There are exceptions all the way through in sections 30.8 and 30.9 that would permit the radio stations to do a job in a very efficient way.

As a result of the inclusion in section 30.8 of subsection (8), tens if not hundreds of people are losing their jobs or have lost their jobs this year as a result of this clause. The reality is subsection (8) stops the radio stations from either doing things efficiently in a modern, technological way or by doing them efficiently in a modern, technological way and having an unfair compensation go to the creators.

What it is all about is very straightforward. Nowadays just about all music comes to the radio stations in a digital format. It can come to the radio stations in a digital format on a CD or it can come to the radio stations in a digital format on some form of broad band. When that digital format is actually at the radio station, then a decision has to be made.

For example, on a CD there might be 12, 15, 18, 20 cuts or songs. What the radio station would decide is whether it would play cut number two, number seven or number nine. It does not need the rest of the CD. When the station does its programming, it simply lifts selections two, seven and nine from the CD and puts them onto a hard drive. When a particular song is played on air, it is in a different format and, as a consequence, it is automatically on the air.

As I have explained many times to the House, my daughter is married to a musician. I understand copyright. He is a composer. I understand why copyright exists and my daughter and my four grandchildren are supported in no small part by virtue of the fact that copyright law exists. I am in favour of copyright law. When value is exchanged, when the music is played, then my son-in-law and all other composers and authors and artists should be properly compensated. That is fine.

What goes on with so-called ephemeral recordings is it simply changes the format technically behind the scenes, possibly at a totally different location, and when it changes the format as a result of clause (8), a copyright fee is payable. The artists, the composers, the authors are not entitled to be paid simply because of a technological change.

The heritage minister is prepared to change the copyright law in clause 21 for specific copyright owners and holders or people who could receive value because of copyright law. However she is not prepared to protect the hundreds of people in the radio and recording industries who have ended up losing their jobs in the last year to 18 months.

The parliamentary secretary knows that. I believe her predecessor was with us when we were on the tour to take a look at this, among many other issues. We were in a radio station in downtown Montreal. We went through and saw what actually transpired. Does anyone know what it was? It was the push of a button. With that push of button there was no sound, no music, no playing and no value exchanged. There was simply the transfer of digital information at light speed from one format to another format and, as a result of that, there was a copyright payable. There are other problems within the copyright law at which we desperately need to be look.

Why did we end up with subsection (8) and subsection (9)? In 1997 the then parliamentary secretary, Guy Arseneault was negotiating with the Bloc Quebecois and at that point there were no collectives that could actually collect any copyright fee. The Bloc Quebecois critic, in negotiating with Mr. Arseneault, the parliamentary secretary, had those clauses included.

I hollered in a loud voice at that time. The recording industry and broadcasters could see this train coming into the station and we tried to make as big a deal of it as we possibly could, and good on the Bloc Quebecois.

What happened was this. Gaston Leroux, who was the critic for the Bloc Quebecois, knew there was a collective coming in Quebec and because he knew that, he wanted to wipe out the ability of the ephemeral rights exclusion and he got his way. Why? Because the parliamentary secretary of the day, acting on behalf of the then heritage minister, the current heritage minister, was prepared to negotiate that into this law, and it is bad law. Why? Because the heritage minister had made up her mind that Bill C-32 would be through Parliament, out of committee by Christmas and there was a deadline. That was a roadblock by the Bloc Quebecois.

This is fine. That is part of parliamentary procedure but it does not mean that we have to live with bad law that was created by the heritage minister who was simply trying to get the bill through Parliament.

Once again, we have a situation where this heritage minister, in Bill C-36, has gone ahead and made changes yet once again to copyright law that really should not have been made. I am really not sure what her motivation is nor will I try to guess. The fact is the heritage committee is now seized with the responsibility under legislation, which came to us through Bill C-32, to come to the House with a report on the shortcomings and the strengths of the copyright law and from that point to come forward with laws on a new copyright bill. There is no excuse for the fact that we are in that process and for the fact that this, which I believe is an erroneous part of Bill C-32 to begin with, is now part of Bill C-36.

There are other parts of copyright law that also require changing. For example, the so-called blank tape levy, again one to which I absolutely was opposed, is proving to become even more of a problem than what I have just explained about ephemeral right. Under the guise of ensuring that the artists would end up being properly compensated, the heritage minister brought into Bill C-32 the so-called blank tape levy, which is to presume that everyone in Canada is guilty of recording illegally and therefore we will extract a levy on all blank tapes.

First, that goes against anything I understand about law in Canada. Every Canadian is innocent until proven guilty. Under the blank tape levy we are saying that everybody is guilty, whether they record a sermon in church, or a speech, or something in a classroom, and they must pay a levy on that.

The interpretation by the copyright board has been that it is on the amount of information recorded, not on the length of the tape. The original idea that was floated, and I did not believe it for a second, was it only would be 25¢ a tape and that was really no big deal. In fact it has been substantially more than 25¢ a tape. Now that we have new technology and new recordings like the MP3s and others that have a tremendous capacity to absorb music, the cost of that new technology has gone through the roof.

It will mean for Canadian retailers, for people with whom I am familiar, that some people will quickly go across from southwestern Ontario to Buffalo or to Niagara Falls, New York. I am familiar with people in British Columbia who will easily go across to Spokane.

What it basically means is that an MP3 or another recording device that is available in constant Canadian dollars down there for $200 will be retailing in Canada for $400 or $600 simply because of this so-called blank tape levy.

The problem with Bill C-36 is not its intent, but the fact that the heritage minister chose to make this an omnibus bill, thereby being caught in changing unnecessary parts of the Copyright Act and as a consequence acting in a totally unfair way with other copyright holders.

I say, shame on the minister for putting the parliamentary secretary into the position that she did, in asking the parliamentary secretary to give my colleague and I, and others a solemn undertaking that the clause would be removed. Shame on her for not removing it when it came back here at report stage.

[Jim Abbott, Canadian Alliance, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the parliamentary secretary would recall that she and I had a conversation in June where she said that the heritage minister and she were in favour of dropping the so-called Mickey Mouse amendment which is clause 21 of Bill C-36. This amendment was put into the bill and has absolutely nothing to do with the archives or the library.

I recognize the distinction the parliamentary secretary has made in her speech today that in clause 26, section 30.5 of the Copyright Act is being amended and so on and so forth. I understand there was a requirement in Bill C-36 for there to be a revision or amendments to the Copyright Act. We understand that.

I would hope that she would confirm that at that time, she told me and she also told my colleague, the member for Fraser Valley, who is responsible for the bill, that the government was going to see that the offending clause, the problem clause, clause 21 was removed from the bill. What happened was the member for Parkdale—High Park and others came to the committee and made sure that the clause stayed in.

If the parliamentary secretary, the heritage minister and the heritage department were prepared to remove that from consideration in committee, and recognizing that she was not responsible for what happened in committee except that she was incapable of following through on the commitment that she made, why was the government unwilling to accept the amendment of my colleague from Fraser Valley at report stage to follow through on what she committed to me and to the member for Fraser Valley that the offending clause, clause 21, be removed from the bill?

[Carole-Marie Allard, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C-36, an act to establish the Library and Archives of Canada.

With this debate, this legislation will take an important step toward our ultimate goal of establishing the Library and Archives of Canada. This legislation was initiated four years ago with the tabling of the English report, and the appointment of Roch Carrier as National Librarian and Ian Wilson as National Archivist.

In 1999, the publication of the report entitled “The Role of the National Archives of Canada and the National Library of Canada” was a clear turning point for these two great institutions.

At the time, the Minister of Canadian Heritage asked Professor John English to consult the stakeholders on several key issues, notably the structure of these two institutions and how they could help Canada become a leader on information highway, which is constantly evolving.

At the same time, the professor was also asked to study ways to better preserve our country's collective memory and improve our access to it.

Extensive consultations were conducted to gather input from the staff of both organizations, as well as from archivists, librarians, academics, departmental representatives and many other stakeholders. Following these, Mr. English made recommendations to make these two institutions work better.

Several of these recommendations dealt with the management of Canadian documentary heritage in the digital age and how to make this heritage available to Canadians. The enormous potential of the Internet was another topic that pervaded the consultations.

In his report, Mr. English also identified several areas where the two institutions already share services. He recommended that this cooperation be expanded to include the management of internal documents, computer systems, cultural programming and other areas.

In their presentations before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, the national archivist and the national librarian told us they had both read the English report before being appointed and had discussed it. As Roch Carrier said, and I quote:

—we saw that there were many opportunities for us to work together.

For various historical reasons, there were some rather puzzling divisions. For instance, Ian is entrusted with cartoons, or caricatures in newspapers; but I am entrusted with newspapers. I am entrusted with voices; Ian is entrusted with the images that go with the voices, etc.

Mr. Carrier added that his counterpart and he agreed that the situation did not make sense and that it would make sense to gather together the great wealth with which they are entrusted.

This joint decision marks one more step toward a brighter future, through the establishment of a new knowledge institute in Canada, bringing together two major organizations and combining their strengths under a new mandate that reflects the new digital reality and provides them with the tools required to meet the needs of a country in this 21st century.

Thanks to the commitment of these two men and the efforts of the men and women who work at the National Library and at the National Archives, a synergy was created. These two institutions have worked together on various projects and reinforced the existing bond between them. They already share several administrative functions such as finance, human resources, some facilities, security and information and preservation services.

The directors did all they could in the current context. Nonetheless, they quickly realized that a merger was the logical next step.

Combining these two institutions could provide us with enormous potential. Following this initiative, Bill C-36 was presented in the House in May, 2003. Then, in June, just before the House adjourned for the summer, the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage reviewed the bill.

The committee heard from a large number of witnesses, who talked about numerous elements of the bill, and an exhaustive discussion ensued, as could be expected. One of the most interesting things to note is that although every witness wanted to express an opinion, everyone was unanimous and enthusiastic about the idea of contributing to the merger and creation of Library and Archives Canada.

All the witnesses—library science or archival specialists, a large number of users and historians, and even potential contributors or authors—talked about how much Canadians, including themselves, would benefit from this new knowledge institute.

Together we have improved this bill nicely. We have introduced the necessary changes to allow Library and Archives Canada to rest on a solid and modern foundation.

What will this new cultural institute look like? Will it be a veritable treasure of Canadian knowledge and history; a new guardian of our cultural heritage?

I believe the answer is yes. In fact, we are currently witnessing something a lot greater than a simple merger. Our objective is not to save money by using the same letterhead, but rather to create a new agency that is more dynamic and effective, with a greater influence and the ability to respond to Canadians' new needs.

I will give a few examples. By combining the specialized skills of librarians and archivists, it will be possible to ensure integrated access to the collections.

By combining the collections, it will be possible to create seamless access to the holdings. For example, a person looking for information on the sinking of the Empress of Ireland would have access not only to published accounts in books and newspapers like we might get if we just went to the library, but also to photographs, manuscripts, and a host of other forms of documentary materials through a single point of access.

With the combined resources and expertise of nearly 1,000 employees of the National Library and the National Archives, the new institution will be better positioned to manage the millions of items in its collection, and meet the evolving and ever increasing information needs of Canadians.

The combined specialized skills of librarians and archivists will allow Canada to be at the forefront of information sciences through, for example, the development in the field of metadata and provide the Government of Canada with the centre of leadership and expertise of information management.

As you are no doubt aware, the collections of these two institutions are truly impressive. No one should be surprised by this, given the broad scope of their respective mandates.

The National Archives were founded in 1872. The mission of the institution, now well past its hundredth birthday, is to preserve the collective memory of the nation and the Canadian government, to help protect rights, and to enhance the sense of national identify.

The National Archives preserve millions of documents of all kinds: films, maps, diaries, treaties, works of art, government documents, photographs, and sound recordings.

As for the National Library, it was created in 1953. Its role is to acquire, conserve and promote documents comprising Canada's publishing heritage. I would like to quote Roch Carrier's excellent vision of these two entities. He said:

In the National Library and the National Archives of Canada, no documents are lost. We have a system for identifying documents and for retracing them. We also have a great responsibility to the nation to safeguard these documents, because if we lose documents today, then in 50 years or 300 years, no one will be able to access them.

By combining collections and personnel, Library and Archives Canada will be able to provide a whole wealth of information, thousands of items of information to millions of Canadians in every part of this country.

Technological progress will enable this new entity to work with institutions all over Canada and elsewhere. This new institution will reap the benefit of the partnerships already in place with other archives and a network of 21,000 public libraries across Canada.

Some of these partnerships may also be strengthened. The bill will assign to Library and Archives Canada the role of facilitating cooperation among the various intervenors involved in promoting and preserving Canada's documentary heritage.

One important objective of this new institution will be to work in conjunction with other library and archives services throughout Canada to put into place strategies to facilitate the identification and preservation of Canada's documentary heritage on a variety of supports. This documentary heritage will also have to reflect the Canadian reality in all its diversity and complexity.

Speaking of preservation, the government has also set aside $15 million in the 2003 budget for urgent short term storage requirements and for studies on the best way of preserving its collection in the long term. This solution is a key component of the preservation and promotion of the Canadian documentary heritage.

Bill C-36 also includes amendments to the Copyright Act. That subject was of interest to a number of witnesses who appeared before the committee. I would like to reiterate why these amendments are necessary. First of all, because Bill C-36 will create a new, modern institution, with the ability to play a leading role in the digital universe.

For example, the bill changes the requirement for legal deposit in the case of books, and clarifies that electronic publications are covered as well. In addition, the head of the new institution will have new powers to periodically sample Internet sites of importance to Canada.

This only refers to Internet sites accessible to the public without restriction and solely for the purpose of preservation for future generations of Canadians. Nevertheless, since electronic publications and Internet sites are ephemeral in nature, they can change rapidly and often. Library and Archives Canada will archive them on durable media, in one copy.

For greater legislative clarity, we therefore propose an exception to the Copyright Act similar to that which already exists for the archiving of broadcast works.

I would like to point out that this exception will apply only to the new institution, Library and Archives Canada, and that it will be used strictly for preservation purposes, with access to these works being limited to on-site consultation.

At the same time, Bill C-36 contains other amendments to the Copyright Act that would facilitate the work of this new cultural institution. The proposed bill will amend section 30.21 of the Copyright Act to remove the conditions that archival institutions must meet to make single copies of unpublished works. Such copies are used for the purpose of research and private study.

Section 30.21 currently states that a copy of an unpublished work deposited before September 1, 1999, can only be made if the archive is unable to locate the copyright owner. It also states that records must be kept of all copies made under this section. This adds quite a burden to our archival facilities and reduces the access that Canadians have to these documents. The archival community would like to see this condition lifted.

To achieve a balance between users and copyright holders, the bill also includes an extension of the term of protection accorded to unpublished works of Canadian authors who died before 1949 to be extended until 2017. This would allow the heirs of an author of such a work an opportunity to publish the previously unpublished work.

The solution proposed in the Library and Archives of Canada Act would be to eliminate these two conditions. These amendments represent another concrete example of the government's commitment to giving this new institution the mandate, the powers and the tools it needs to achieve its goals.

I want to share an anecdote told by Roch Carrier to illustrate the Internet's true potential. During his presentation to the committee, Mr. Carrier talked about the music department at the National Library of Canada which, in the past, has welcomed 300 researchers per year. Now available on line, this service is provided to more than 100,000 visitors per month. That is a huge difference, is it not?

This shows how truly important access to our documentary heritage is. Thanks to Bill C-36, this new institution will have the means necessary to provide on line services, like the Canadian Genealogy Centre and the future Virtual Reference Canada. This will allow Canadians to discover their rich documentary heritage.

In closing, I simply want to say that Bill C-36 is helping us to build something for present and future generations, who will benefit from it. The bill's preamble eloquently summarizes the noble purpose of this new institution as a source of knowledge. It also ensures that Canada's documentary heritage will be preserved for the benefit of present and future generations; that Canada be served by an institution thatis a source of enduring knowledgeaccessible to all; that this institution facilitate in Canadacooperation among the communities involvedin the acquisition, preservation anddiffusion of knowledge;and that this institution serve as the continuingmemory of the Government of Canada andits institutions. I have no doubt that the Library and Archives of Canada will be one of the most important institutions of our society.

For these reasons and many others, I encourage all the hon. members to join me in supporting Bill C-36.

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, for the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

moved that Bill C-36, an act to establish the Library and Archives of Canada, to amend the Copyright Act and to amend certain Acts in consequence, be read the third time and passed.

Business of the House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I guess this is the supplementary question to the lead-off of her leader earlier this day. He wanted to know the business of the House as well.

I am pleased to inform the House that we will continue today debating the Alliance motion endorsing Dalton McGuinty's election platform, which we have been doing for the day. Later tonight Mr. McGuinty will be the premier.

Tomorrow we will resume third reading debate of Bill C-13, the reproductive technologies bill. When this bill is completed, we will then turn to Bill C-32, the Criminal Code amendments.

On Monday, should it be necessary, we would return to Bill C-13 followed by third reading of Bill C-36, the Archives and National Library bill.

We would then proceed to the report stage of Bill C-19, the first nations fiscal legislation. If necessary, I would then return to Bill C-32, the Criminal Code amendments, followed subsequently by Bill S-13, the census records bill.

I will be seeking also cooperation of colleagues across the way to further our discussion on Bill C-41, the technical corrections bill that we discussed informally earlier this day.

On Tuesday, we will debate the third reading of Bill C-17, the public safety bill.

Starting on Wednesday, I hope we will be in a position to deal with bills that have come out of committee, as well as dealing with any of the business just listed that has not been completed.

I would also like to indicate to the House that we have had conversations about the future of Bill C-38, concerning the use of marijuana. We also intend to put this bill before the House in the very near future.

Library and Archives of Canada Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions at the report stage of Bill C-36. The question is on Motion No. 12.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate. I will start by saying that we are in favour of the motions by the Canadian Alliance concerning the removal of everything pertaining to copyright in Bill C-36.

The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage is already looking at this issue. It is extremely complex, as we know, particularly when we want to be able to take into account both the rights of the heirs of the authors in question and those of researchers or members of the general public to have access to these works.

It is completely logical to remove any references to copyright from Bill C-36. Let us hope the heritage committee will succeed in striking a fair balance in this complex matter.

I believe that Canadian Alliance Motions Nos. 12 and 20 address this and therefore have our support. As for Motion No. 17, however, I believe we will vote against it.

That being said, this whole debate is extremely important. A number of my colleagues have taken the opportunity to point out how opposed to Bill C-36 the Bloc Quebecois is, particularly the issue of merging the Library and the Archives, which have two different missions.

The hon. member for Laval Centre has suggested I look up the dictionary definitions of “archives” and “library”. I think that reading those definitions will provide a clear understanding of the fact that their mandates are different and are not such that they can be combined, as Bill C-36 seeks to do.

The definitions are from Le Petit Larousse , which I am sure all will agree is a totally reliable source.

The definition of “archives” given by this dictionary is: “Body of documents relating to the history of a city, a family etc, or those of a corporation, administration and the like”. “Archives” is also defined as “a location in which such documents are stored”. We can clearly see that archives have to do with a certain type of document with a connection to a family or company, as well as certain historical documents.

The definition of “library” given in Le Petit Larousse is: “Location, room or institution, public or private, in which a collection of books, texts, manuscripts and the like are shelved and managed”. Hon. members can see that this is really connected with the printed word and not with documents that could be described as archival.

When we consider a land register, which records properties with buildings on them or under cultivation, with the names of owners, it is quite clear that this type of record has its place in an archive, but not at all in a library, according to the definitions in Le Petit Larousse .

Moreover, most of the industrialized nations have understood very well that these entities have two different mandates. In France, Germany, the United States and Belgium, these are separate entities, with their own administrations, which develop their own logics, since they are not the same.

I think that by merging the two, Bill C-36 creates a great deal of confusion, as much in terms of administration as of mandate. Whether it is the archivists or the librarians, one of these two professions will end up losing.

When I was general secretary of the CSN, I had the opportunity to manage staff. I have already been an employer. We had a records department and a library. When we hired a records clerk, an archivist if you will, we hired someone who was trained to be a records clerk, not a librarian. However, when we needed a librarian, we hired a technician in that speciality, or someone who had studied library science.

Two completely different kinds of training, work and mandate are involved, and Bill C-36 does not take this into account. If it is adopted—we hope it will not be—it will surely result in a loss, for one group or the other, of a fundamental mandate.

Why is the government seeking to combine the two mandates? This is a question that remains unanswered. It is no doubt for reasons having to do with what we could think of as economies of scale. But as far as the mandates of the National Archives and the National Library are concerned, are economies of scale really that important? Will the savings make up for the cost of losing one mandate or the other? I do not think it is appropriate to think in those terms.

Is the idea more to give the new institution a broad propaganda mandate, to promote the Canadian vision of history and culture? That is probably closer to the truth. We know full well that this is a debate that we had right here, during question period.

Like most Quebeckers, including the current Premier of Quebec, we in the Bloc Quebecois believe that Quebec is a nation with a culture of its own. But just recently the Minister of Canadian Heritage referred again to Canadian culture. For her, anything relating to Quebec's culture is in fact a regional aspect of the broader Canadian culture.

I think it is more in this perspective of building Canada according to the Canadian vision that Bill C-36 must be viewed. Especially since the bill expands the mandate of the new institution, Library and Archives of Canada, to include a reference to the interpretation of Canadian history.

There is great cause for concern there, because if there is one area in which diversity and complexity preclude any official interpretation or something of the sort it is that one. I would be curious to know how Canadian history would be interpreted under that mandate. Take Louis Riel for example.

I will tell members a story. I had opportunity to visit Charlottetown. They have a sort of Fathers of Confederation museum, where they outline how the Canadian Confederation came about. This kind of information is always interesting, but it was set in a clearly Canadian vision. For instance, I learned there that Louis Riel had played an important role in the creation of the province of Manitoba. But there was no mention anywhere of the fact that he was hanged for high treason. Is that the interpretation we will be given of this tragic chapter of our history?

There was also conscription, both in 1917 and during the second world war. Canadians and Quebeckers interpret this event completely differently. In this respect, which interpretation will be considered the right one? I can give another example, the War Measures Act of 1970. No matter how we try to look at this, surely our interpretation will be different.

This is extremely dangerous. One of our top sociologists, Guy Rocher, conducted a study with one of his colleagues, whose name I unfortunately forget, on the perspective found in the history books used by schools in Canada and Quebec. He was able to prove that this perspective was completely different, depending on whose it was, Quebec's or Canada's.

As a result, I think that this aspect should be totally eliminated from the mandates of the Library and Archives of Canada. This results in a reductionism that does not correspond to reality. History is constant evolving. Our interpretation of the past is constantly subject to change.

For example, our current view of the first nations is quite different from our view at turn of the century. We realized a number of things that might not have been so important back then. Values also change.

All this to say that this aspect must be totally eliminated. Overall, this legislation is not relevant. As a result, although we agree with some of the Canadian Alliance's motions, in the end, the Bloc Quebecois will vote against Bill C-36.

[James Rajotte, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure today to stand and address Bill C-36, an act to establish the Library and Archives of Canada, to amend the Copyright Act and to amend certain acts in consequence. It is also my pleasure to support the five motions introduced by my colleague, our critic for Canadian Heritage.

As my colleagues in the Canadian Alliance have stated, we support the preservation and protection of Canadian heritage, including the documents and artifacts that will be held by the new entity created by the bill.

On a personal note, I am accused often by my staff and others of being both a librarian and an archivist. I love to read and my office is filled with books on many subjects. Plus, with the amount of paper I refuse to throw away, I may consider becoming an archivist if the politics thing does not work out.

As the Canadian Alliance senior critic for industry, my interest in the bill lies primarily with the clauses that affect copyright, clauses 21 and 22, and the subsequent Motions Nos. 20 and 21, both of which seek to delete the copyright clauses.

Copyright is the right of the creator of an original work to authorize or prohibit certain uses of the work or to receive compensation for its use.

I find it quite ironic that in a bill which seeks to promote the work of institutions that have as their mandate to put on display and preserve works to be viewed by the public, we find clauses with the express intent to restricting public access to historical works.

In terms of housekeeping provisions, I also find it strange that copyright amendments were introduced in this fashion. Because copyright issues change so quickly, there is a requirement under section 92 of the Copyright Act, which states:

Within five years after the coming into force of this section--

For example, no later than September 1, 2002.

--the Minister shall cause to be laid before both Houses of Parliament a report on the provisions and operation of this Act, including any recommendations for amendments to this Act.

Clearly, no such revisions have been laid before the House. However I understand that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage announced in June of this year that it hopes to launch its statutory review of the Copyright Act later this fall.

In addition to this, last year Industry Canada and Canadian Heritage jointly issued a report entitled “Supporting Culture and Innovation: Report on the Provisions and Operation of the Copyright Act”. Surely the Minister of Canadian Heritage could have raised the copyright issue in that report, instead of trying to put it into a bill in which we think it is not appropriate to be there.

These are very technical amendments that concern the protection of unpublished works. In Canada, the standard term of protection for published material is 50 years after the death of the author.

Unpublished works of authors who died before 1949 will come into the public domain on January 1, 2004. In other words, their copyright protection and the opportunity for their family to make any financial gains from work will expire in the new year.

What the legislation would allow is for the heirs of authors such as Lucy Maud Montgomery to maintain control of Montgomery's unpublished diaries a further 14 years in hopes of finding a publisher.

As legislators, and especially in the age of the Internet, we are often asked to be mediators between the protection of creative works in order to allow the creator to preserve his or her integrity and to earn a living, and the opportunity for the general public to enjoy such creative works. It is a difficult balance to strike I admit.

This situation has been recently raised with respect to access to census records. What is a reasonable time period as to how long such information should be kept from public release? For copyright, in my view, 50 years is a reasonable time period.

One of the roles I have as industry critic is to support and promote research and development. R and D is not limited to the lab or to scientific works. It includes written works and works that obviously deal with the human arts. I would not like to further inhibit the work of historical and social researchers for the sake of protecting the possible financial returns of a few families.

Many have noted that copyright protection for unpublished works in the United States has been extended to 70 years after death. This extension was engineered by the Walt Disney Corporation in order to protect its profits.

What is interesting is to actually think about Disney in terms of borrowing from others in order to create the great films that it has in the past. Cinderella was not originally written by Mr. Disney. Beauty and the Beast was not originally written by Mr. Disney, nor was Winnie the Pooh . The fact is that the Disney empire has greatly benefited, as all of us who have watched these films have, by borrowing from works that have fallen out of copyright.

There is no doubt that copyright is important to innovation. It reinforces an author's rights and entitlements to his or her hard work. However, there is also a relationship between the written word and the role it plays in the process of social and political dialogue.

For example, the genome, also known as the book of life, is a map of all the genetic information stored within our cells. The White House intervened in 2000 to make sure the genome would not remain hidden from public view through intellectual property rights protection.

In the case of the genome, compromises were reached to both protect intellectual property and further research. The public has free access to the genome sequence over the Internet, but those who did all the hard work have legal protection against data piracy. In addition, those who want to use the sequence for commercial purposes must negotiate an agreement with one of the organizations that completed the sequencing.

In my opinion, the genome is an excellent example of how we as elected officials can mediate property rights for the greater good.

From an innovation perspective, it is good to see we are speaking more and more about copyright, patents and intellectual property in the House. Most companies that patent scientific research seem to be able to balance the common good with the clear financial rewards of owning intellectual property.

Ideas and creations are part of an innovative economy and country. According to Industry Canada, patents and copyrights are highly correlated with R and D spending. They help us to work better and compete with each other. They stimulate us to experiment and to eventually reap the rewards of our hard work.

However, at some point we need to share these creations and designs with others so that we can learn from our successes, we can learn about each other and we can learn about our failures. It is finding that balance between the protection of intellectual property to reward the creator and the innovator and allowing the public good to have access to that work.

In conclusion, I am supporting the motions introduced by my colleague, particularly to delete clauses 21 and 22.

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the amendments put forward on Bill C-36, an act to establish the Library and Archives of Canada and to amend the Copyright Act .

I listened to many of the witnesses who came before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage and I heard their concerns and solutions. I have also heard today in the House a great deal of rancour about the way the legislation unfolded and was dealt with in sort of the dying days of the last session. Much of that was unfortunate. I urge members of the House to not allow the hurry and the politicking that went on at that time to get in the way of what I think is very important legislation which meets several needs at this time for some important institutions and also for writers in Canada.

I feel confident that the bill satisfies the needs of the two institutions in question, the Archives and the Library. I have gained assurances from the departments and the institutions that this merger is not a cost cutting exercise, that in fact the merger is for the very best reasons, to make this a storehouse of incredible capacity for the stories, histories and archives of Canada, and I completely support that.

I believe members of the House have to value the archival and the heritage nature of these institutions. We have to value the previous generations of Canadian writers, politicians and citizens. These institutions are all about that. We are bringing together two storehouses of information which are critical to the public good and to our heritage.

The bill will also redress some wrongs done to creators in the previous revision of the Copyright Act. I believe it does that in clauses 21 and 22. I support those clauses.

Clause 7 of the bill has created a lot of controversy, probably more controversy than the original change to unpublished copyright in 1997. The NDP supports any measure that protects the creators of works and their heirs.

Janet Lunn, who is the past chair of the Writers' Union of Canada, said it best in her testimony before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage on June 3. She stated:

A writer's legacy to his or her family is the copyright in the works created during his or her lifetime. Often a writer is able to leave little else. We don't as writers have large estates and stocks and bonds usually. Our works are our legacy.

In 1997 the perpetual copyright on unpublished works was changed to match copyright on published works, 50 years after the death of the author. A change like this does not take effect right away. Therefore works from authors who have died since 1948 were automatically protected for a 50 year grace period. Works from authors who died before 1948 only received protection for a five year transition period before implementation. When a similar change was instituted in the U.K., a 50 year transition period was considered fair notice and the U.S. chose a 25 year transition period.

Janet Lunn explained the unintended consequences of such a short transition period. She stated:

--works not published by the end of 1998, even if they have been published since, will come into the public domain on January 1, 2004. This means that while an author who died on January 1, 1949, is protected until 2048, an author who died one day earlier, on December 31, 1948, is protected only until January 1, 2004

Today in question period I asked the veterans affairs minister about a piece of legislation which targeted, or excluded, 25,000 widows of veterans because their husbands happened to pass away one day before the legislation offering assistance was put in place. We realize this incredibly arbitrary date will have such horrible, unintended consequences on 25,000 very vulnerable older women.

I mention that because there is some parallel here, that we have to look at people on either side of these arbitrary dates and try to establish what the consequences would be. I would say they are astounding and would have ripple effects in different sectors of the cultural industry.

Five years may seem a sufficient length of time to publish material, even though it can take that long or longer to convince a publisher of the worth of the material. However the five year transition period would mean a publisher would only enjoy the benefits of publishing material until January 1, 2004, which is a ridiculously short period of time to recoup the publishing costs of a book. In other jurisdictions that removed perpetual copyright on unpublished works, a decade long transition was planned.

Our oversight of 1997 needs to be redressed before the end of this year. It is important that this legislation has the copyright provisions in it.

We all are aware that a major revision of the Copyright Act is to be undertaken shortly and I welcome the opportunity to be part of that. What this is, though, is a stopgap measure to protect people from the unexpected consequences of the changes that were made in 1997. I think anyone in this House would agree that one day should not create such a discrepancy in the lives of our writers and publishers in this country.

The unintended consequences of the bill are the following.

Our authors do not have to publish their books in Canada. Nor do the publishers have to publish them. Given the situation now facing them, many will go elsewhere. They will go offshore and they will be published other places.

Other jurisdictions have lengthier copyright protection than we do. If unpublished work is not protected here for a fair amount of time, authors or their publishers can take the work out of the country for publication.

Is that loss of heritage what we want to bring about in a bill such as this? What about the loss to the publishing industry in this country, which is in fact struggling at all times anyway?

Therefore, I repeat that this section of the bill would not make it impossible for researchers or genealogists to use information from archives or collections. This is a point that has been made and I think it is a bogus point. They were able to do that under the perpetual copyright provisions pre-1997 and we all benefited from the books, essays, plays and movies created from people looking at old letters and papers that had never been published.

As always, the concept of “fair dealing” still applies, which means people could use copyright material for research and review, but the right to publish material in its entirety remains with the copyright owner until copyright expires.

I would like to return to the bill as a whole.

Both these institutions under discussion are charged with maintaining the documentary heritage of Canada. It is an important and a costly exercise.

Under the former finance minister, both these institutions saw their budget slashed in half. It is time that we focus again on these institutions and ensure they are economically viable. We need legislation in place which will give them the tools to move forward with this important merger. We need the copyright provisions in place that will protect writers, publishers and historians. I want to work to ensure that the legislation goes through before the House possibly comes to a premature end.

I and the New Democrats will be supporting the bill in its entirety.

[Gary Schellenberger, Progressive Conservative, Perth—Middlesex, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is right. The member was not there. He had already gone home because it was after recess.

I know some of my more seasoned colleagues from the opposition and others may not be at all that surprised to see this type of shenanigans, however, I was shocked. I suppose I should have expected it. After all, this is the same gang of Grits who promised Canadians they would be ripping up the free trade agreement and scrapping the GST.

The meeting was one with very few hon. members in attendance. In fact, if I had left the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage there would not have been a quorum. I could have left in disgust, but I suppose I am of the opinion that more good can come from rolling up the sleeves and getting to work than simply taking my marbles and going home.

I have learned a lesson. I have always been of the opinion that we can attract far more bees with honey than with vinegar. But I sure hate when spreading the honey attracts a big bumblebee that stings. I feel stung by the government majority on the committee.

I know a shady deal when I see one. I do not want to say I was not told the truth by the committee, but I was certainly told one thing would happen. When it was time to cash in the chips, another thing entirely occurred. We can call that what we like I suppose, but it is enough from my standpoint to cloud the process sufficiently for me to vote against the bill. However, I will continue to debate.

If the Liberals want to change the Copyright Act, then they should table a bill, have meetings with hon. members and expert witnesses in order to deal strictly with the very complex issue of copyright, in accordance with proper parliamentary tradition. If they want to try to sneak through a couple of clauses to correct a Grit error from a few years ago, then they should be open and honest about it. Perhaps some of their opposition colleagues may actually help them to do so. However trying to slip through a part of a bill that does not belong there without explaining why, is not right.

When government members, who make a deal to remove these clauses, then learn from their political masters in the Prime Minister's office that they need to break their word and keep these clauses in, is very suspicious behaviour. It is very fishy indeed. They forgot they had a deal. They forgot they gave us their word. They told us not to worry and assured us that we could trust them. I found out about that in short order at my first ever committee. That is how long it took me.

Aside from the shady behaviour on the part of the government in trying to railroad through sections 21 and 22 of the bill, much of the work I have done on my own has done nothing to ease my concerns about amending these copyright laws without due diligence.

Through a publisher, the esteemed, maybe most highly esteemed and respected figure among Canadian historians, Dr. Jack Granatstein, informed my office that in his expert opinion:

This bill will interfere with scholarship, complicate the lives of researchers needlessly and cost everyone time and money. It is simply unnecessary.

That does not sound too good.

Don LePan, president of Broadview Press, is on record as saying that these copyright provisions in Bill C-36 represent, in his own words:

...one of several significant threats in the current horizon to the public domain; copyright restrictions in Canada are already more stringent than they need be, and it is crucial that we resist further incursions on the public domain.

The following are points of concern surrounding sections 21 and 22 of Bill C-36.

With a review of copyright law in general about to get underway, there is no good reason to include as an add on to an unrelated bill these provisions regarding copyright.

Who would benefit from these provisions of Bill C-36? It is often claimed that authors as a whole benefit from extending copyright provisions. In practice, however, it is typically only a handful of the best known and most enduringly successful writers whose heirs benefits from such provisions in any significant financial way.

One thing I remember just from my life was a deal I made one time to buy a piece of property. It was owned by an estate. We could never get a clear deed on that estate because the descendants of those people lived all over the world. We could never get anyone to come in to sign the papers that were required. This is what I am talking about on the extended copyright. To try to find some of these people would be very hard.

Indeed, extensions of copyright restrictions can be directly contrary to the interests of many deceased authors, not least of all because publishers who might be interested in making certain works available will frequently be discouraged from doing so if the author's heirs are difficult or impossible to locate.

However I am of the opinion that the joining together of the Library of Parliament and the National Archives is of such importance as to require me to look deeply into the bill, and I will be taking advice from my colleagues.

[Gary Schellenberger, Progressive Conservative, Perth—Middlesex, ON]

Madam Speaker, as the PC Party critic for Canadian heritage and culture it is with great pride that I rise to speak to Bill C-36.

During the early stages of the development of the bill, the Progressive Conservative Party was cautiously supportive of the legislation. We felt the joining of the National Library and National Archives was necessary to best preserve Canadian history.

Because of the confusion surrounding the effects clauses 21 and 22 may have on the future of research, academic scholarship and publishing in Canadian literature, I am inclined to remove that initial support for what is otherwise an appropriate bill.

I have a background in municipal politics and can appreciate the benefits that can occur when organizations are joined together and resources pooled to provide people with more effective services, better use of taxpayers' dollars and ease of use.

When first glancing over Bill C-36, I felt the government had actually drafted a good piece of legislation. It was about time. Then I read clauses 21 and 22 which have nothing to do whatsoever with the amalgamation of the National Library and National Archives. These clauses deal with copyright law of all things. These clauses do not belong in the bill. They stick out like sore thumbs.

Before my second committee meeting it was my understanding that there was an agreement among my colleagues on this committee that if clauses 21 and 22 were removed, then we could, for the most part, agree it was a good bill.

I felt good about the agreement because it struck me as if it was an example of parliamentarians working well with each other, bargaining in good faith, et cetera. I understood that clauses 21 and 22 were to be removed and I understood at that point that most of the committee members, if not all, would support the bill.

Lo and behold, as our second meeting progressed--a meeting which was a special meeting that was called after the House recessed and during which the committee examined the bill clause by clause--we eventually arrived at clauses 21 and 22. These clauses were introduced to be withdrawn as per the agreement. However, debate began on the merits of keeping the clauses in the legislation. Being the only opposition member present, I felt betrayed by this.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on the motions by my hon. colleague from Fraser Valley, with regard to Bill C-36.

The aim of this bill is to create a new institution called the Library and Archives of Canada. I must inform the House that the Bloc Quebecois opposes this bill, but before I explain why, I want to briefly discuss the motions now before the House.

I want to talk about Motion No. 12, which deals with clause 8 in the bill, under the heading “Objects and Powers”. The Bloc Quebecois will vote in favour of this motion, because it will ensure impartiality. As a result of everything we witnessed today and everything that happened with the sponsorship program under Communication Canada, we discovered all the goings-on and the friends compensated with taxpayers' money.

The Bloc Quebecois believes that if this motion were defeated, it would mean that the current government has not learned from its mistakes with Communication Canada and the sponsorship program. Constituents and taxpayers would appreciate less partisanship when it comes to public funds. In fact, under the current Liberal government here in Canada, there is increasing partisanship and cronyism. I congratulate the hon. member for Fraser Valley for having introduced this amendment.

As for Motion No. 17, which would amend the bill by adding clause 13(5). Clause 13 is found in the part of the bill dealing with “government and ministerial records”.

I can tell the hon. member for Fraser Valley that the Bloc Quebecois will vote against this amendment, because if we add this paragraph and limit access to verification in such a bill, it would also limit transparency. I think that our constituents, all Canadians and Quebeckers, are asking their elected officials and the government to be increasingly transparent and, when supposedly impartial bodies are created, to allow them access to all documents. I am against the Alliance motion, which would restrict this access.

The other motions, numbers 20, 21 and 23, deal with copyright. I am very surprised that copyright is still included in this bill, since, when we discussed this bill in committee in June, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage agreed to withdraw all these clauses from the bill. We came to an agreement and here it is again in the bill.

The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage is currently studying copyright.

I do not understand how copyright can be included in this bill creating an institution. Matters of copyright are too important.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage mentioned just now that there would be copyright for people who died between 1929 and 1949. I do not understand this. It is totally confusing.

The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage must look into this concept of copyright very seriously. The Bloc Quebecois agrees completely with the Canadian Alliance in its decision to propose these amendments.

It is important that people who have written books in the past be recognized. As for those who were not recognized and whom we now define as persons desiring recognition, can we really lump all that into a bill? I say no. It is too important. It would mean that the government did not accord as much importance to the country's authors as the public did.

The Bloc Quebecois agrees with the Canadian Alliance. We must do it. It is urgent. It is necessary. Everything having to do with copyright must be removed from this bill. That is the opinion of the Bloc Quebecois concerning the motions for amendment proposed by the Canadian Alliance.

[Carole-Marie Allard, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, I would like to answer my colleague who just put forward the motions. Motions Nos. 12, 17, 20 and 23 were selected by the Chair.

I will first speak to Motion No. 12. It says, and I quote:

(k) transfer Communication Canada's Depository Services Program to the Library and Archives of Canada.

Under the motion, the librarian and archivist would have the authority to transfer the program. However, I would add that it is the government's decision, not the librarian's and archivist's. It is certainly not the practice, in Canadian legislation, to identify programs of this nature. That is why I think Motion No. 12 should not be carried.

As for Motion No. 17, it proposes that:

(5) The Librarian and Archivist may review any record that the Minister claims to be of a personal and political nature to verify that it is of such character.

This motion deals with ministers' private or political records. The motion proposes that the deputy head be able to examine any document to verify that it is personal or political in nature, as the minister claims.

The framework of and the definitions contained in the legislation—such as the Access to Information Act, the Privacy Act, the National Archives of Canada Act—were all carefully formulated to reflect or supplement the substance of each statute, thereby ensuring their overall linguistic uniformity given that they must interact.

Any change to the legal order governing information created or used by government institutions must be made to all three statutes. A fragmented approach to such amendments, as my hon. colleague is proposing here today, would lead to legal confusion that would jeopardize the implementation of these three statutes and would probably lead to court challenges.

This is why I suggest that my hon. colleague's motion not be retained.

Motions Nos. 20 and 21 deal with amendments to copyright. The purpose of Motion No. 20 is to eliminate the proposed application of copyright to unpublished works.

Of course, there has been ample discussion of the proposed amendments to the Copyright Act, now being debated, and in relation to which my hon. colleague is moving a motion. This legislation was studied in great depth in committee. The committee heard witnesses of all political persuasions, some of whom supported these amendments while others did not.

This issue was discussed over the course of several meetings. The committee concluded that the numerous concrete advantages to this proposal, not only for the authors but also for archivists and users, outweighed the potential inconveniences, which have yet to be proven, for some unspecified groups.

The important thing is that section 7 of the Copyright Act will be amended to extend copyright protection to unpublished works by Canadian authors who died after 1929, but before 1949, until 2017. This would allow the author's heirs to publish this previously unpublished work. If the work remained unpublished at the end of this fourteen-year period, it would come into the public domain. If the work is published during that period, it would then receive copyright protection for twenty years following the date of publication.

The conditions for the protection of unpublished works of authors who died before 1929 are unchanged. Protection terminates on December 31, 2003. If the works in question were published before their protection expired, they would be protected for an additional 20 years from date of publication.

In 1997, section 7 of the Copyright Act was considerably amended by Bill C-32. Before that, unpublished works had perpetual copyright protection.

The amendments proposed in Bill C-32 proved to be highly controversial. Historians, archivists and genealogists lobbied vigorously to have the transitional periods shortened so that older archival material, a large part of which remains unpublished, would enter the public domain sooner.

Their arguments carried enough weight that the government decided to shorten the transitional period, and as a result copyright protection on unpublished works whose author had died before 1949 would expire at the end of 2003.

The people whose interests were being threatened by this therefore launched a campaign to extend the protection of unpublished works to allow heirs the time to publish the works in question.

After a number of meetings, a compromise was struck, and that is what was adopted and is found in clauses 20 and 21 of the bill.

Section 7 of the Copyright Act would be amended so that unpublished works by Canadian authors who died after 1929 but before 1949 would be protected. This protection would be extended beyond the end of 2003, until 2017.

This is a compromise that had already been negotiated. Section 30.21 of the Copyright Act would also be amended to remove the condition that archivists must keep a record of persons to whom single copies of unpublished works are provided for the purposes of research and private study, where copyright has not expired but for which the copyright owner cannot be located.

In light of the compromise agreed to by the stakeholders and given the need to amend section 30.21, on behalf of the Library and Archives of Canada, this amendment is put forward so that it can be approved by December 31, 2003.

This is an important date, because unpublished works would enter the public domain at that time and any subsequent change would have the effect of according protection again, retroactively, which could be a source of even greater confusion.

Allow me to note that the changes in question are consistent with the consensus achieved by all the stakeholders, who agree that the changes I mentioned a moment ago are necessary. That is why the motion put forward by the hon. member opposite must not be passed.

Motion No. 21 proposes to delete clause 22, the same way that Motion No. 20 proposes to delete clause 21. As indicated earlier, the amendments to the Copyright Act flow from the efforts of this government to promote greater access to unpublished works and are part of the agreement reached by all stakeholders regarding this change.

Bill C-36 will amend section 30.21 of the Copyright Act to remove certain conditions that archival institutions must meet in order to make single copies of unpublished works. Such copies are used for the purposes of research and private study.

I am sure members will agree with me that this bookkeeping is only adding to the administrative burden of our archival services and squandering our limited resources which could be better used serving the customers of the Library and Archives of Canada.

Finally, Motion No. 23 proposes to remove references to sections containing amendments to the Copyright Act. I think this motion should also be rejected for the reasons I have already given.

[Chuck Strahl, Canadian Alliance, Fraser Valley, BC]

moved:

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-36, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing lines 23 to 25 on page 4 with the following:

“it;

(j) carry out such other functions as the Governor in Council may specify; and

(k) transfer Communication Canada's Depository Services Program to the Library and Archives of Canada.”

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-36, in Clause 13, be amended by adding after line 39 on page 7 the following:

“(5) The Librarian and Archivist may review any record that the Minister claims to be of a personal and political nature to verify that it is of such character.”

Motion No. 20

That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 21.

Motion No. 21

That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 22.

Motion No. 23

That Bill C-36, in Clause 57, be amended by replacing line 23 on page 21 with the following:

“sections 53 and 54, come into force on”

Madam Speaker, Bill C-36 may not be seizing the nation, but it is an important bill because it does bring together for the first time in an official way the Archives of Canada and the Library of Canada. The bill does this in a way that would allow them to organize their efforts to minimize duplication and also would allow them to organize themselves in a way that would allow one input for both library and archival material. That part of the bill is worthy of support and should be supported. I will talk more about that at the end of this debate.

There are only 10 minutes to debate all of these motions. That is barely enough time, but I will whistle through them, give an explanation, and hopefully make a case for why we have these motions before us today.

Motion No. 12 calls for the government to:

(k) transfer Communication Canada's Depository Services Program to the Library and Archives of Canada.

This may seem like a small technical problem, but it is a huge issue for librarians across the country. Over 790 public and academic libraries in Canada are concerned about the current management structure, which does not ensure that publications of the Government of Canada are properly handled by libraries and archives across the country.

We heard ample evidence in committee that this depository service should be moved under the Library and Archives of Canada. Right now, for example, only 46% of government documents are ever delivered to local public and academic libraries across the country, and that is because it is just not handled by librarians and archivists right now. Certainly librarians and people who deal with this material want to have access to it and they have suggested this as the best way to handle it.

I have received letters from people in my riding about this issue. Believe it or not, it is very important to librarians. I would like to thank Kim Isaac in my riding for bringing this to my attention initially and her other colleagues across the country who have made a very strong and convincing case that this is the way we should be handling it. I urge all members of Parliament to support Motion No. 12, which would officially put that depository service under the auspices of the new Library and Archives of Canada.

Motion No. 17 is primarily about the principles of accountability and transparency. As it is worded now, clause 13 would allow no objective oversight by the librarian and archivist to make sure they are receiving from the ministers of government all ministerial records that they feel have historical significance. This is done by law in the United States. As the secretary of state or for any position in the United States, that individual has to provide records to the archives. They have no choice. It is a legal requirement.

When the access to information commissioner gave testimony before our committee, he very strongly indicated his concern that, either through oversight or deliberate efforts by ministers, information that should be archived will not be. This amendment is brought forward in an effort to force all ministers to allow the archivists to have access to this material because it really belongs to the people of Canada and to the Government of Canada, not to individual ministers.

We also had testimony about what happens right now. Ministers get shuffled from one post to another or kicked out of cabinet, and who knows what may happen as time progresses, so they tell their staff to put tape on top of all the boxes in their offices or on the entire floor because they believe the information is theirs, that it is personal information and is therefore is not available to the archivists. That is simply not true. It may be useful if they decide to write books later in their life, or it may be useful memorabilia, but it actually belongs to the people of Canada and it should be available to the archivists. All kinds of information is simply lost. It is not done in a nasty way; it is just lost. Obviously material that belongs to the government should be available to the archivists. Motion No. 17 would allow the archivists to have that access and to make that determination.

One of the things mentioned in committee was document management. If I could quote from the May 12 Ottawa Citizen , it said about document management:

Today, government decisions are being made in oral briefings and over e-mail, voicemail, BlackBerry and faxes, with few or no records kept. Files are scattered on paper, diskettes and hard drives. Minutes of meetings are rarely kept and what is kept is usually hand-scribbled notes that bureaucrats squirrel away in their files which they take with them when they move or retire. To compound the problem, Mr. Reid has charged that bureaucrats are told right from the top to avoid keeping records at all.

That culture which is being created is one which we need to reverse to openness and accountability. It will be reversed if we pass Motion No. 17 which would make all information available to the archivist.

Finally, Motions Nos. 20, 21 and 23 delete copyright provisions that have been tacked on to the end of the bill almost willy-nilly and ad hoc. We heard from so many people who said that the way to revise copyright is to do it holistically. In fact, the Canadian heritage committee has been tasked with the statutory review of copyright. It must be done within a set period of time by statute. It is a requirement. It should be done holistically and all at the same time.

These clauses, which some people are calling the Lucy Maud Montgomery clauses, benefit only a very few people and are not the proper way to amend copyright legislation. It has made the bill difficult to handle in committee and it is going to make it difficult here again in the House. We are making the case today that the clauses should have been deleted.

In fact, there was broad agreement in committee to delete these clauses. Through some unfortunate shenanigans that went on in the committee, they were not deleted. They were kept in the bill and they are back here today. They should never have been in the bill and it is unfortunate that we are dealing with them today. They should be dealt with as part of a copyright debate and a proper change, an amendment to copyright legislation generally.

These amendments that are in the bill currently will have a negative impact on Canada's families, researchers and writers and Canadian culture. A copyright lawyer told the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, “Canadians will have to wait another 14 to 34 years to get access to historical material in various estates of public persons who may wish to suppress it”, to lock it up through publication effectively restricted by technological protection measures, “or to price it so high as to effectively limit access, using the powerful weapon of copyright law”. This would hardly help Canadians to tell their stories.

The copyright amendments located within the bill, if passed, would have a negative impact on Canadian families, on Canadian culture, and on historic researchers and writers generally. I just hope that today we are going to fix what should have been fixed in committee, that we are going to delete these clauses and we are going to deal with this properly in the review of the copyright legislation.

I think the members of the committee know that it was done poorly and improperly. It was not thought through well. Person after person testified before us that this should not go ahead.

It is not just the Lucy Maud Montgomery heirs who will benefit. It is funny that people are calling it the Lucy Maud Montgomery amendment because it so exclusively benefits such a small group of people, but historians have asked about the papers, letters and so on from R. B. Bennett, the Prime Minister of Canada during the Depression. They will not be able to publish from those letters because they will get caught up in this clause. What about Sir Robert Borden, the Prime Minister of Canada from 1911 to 1920? It is the same problem.

Sir Wilfrid Laurier was a legendary Prime Minister of Canada. Any of his unpublished works would now have protection until 2024 if they are published first before the end of this year. In other words, they have another long period of copyright protection, even though Sir Wilfrid Laurier of course has been dead and gone for almost a century. The same goes for Stephen Leacock, who is a well noted Canadian educator and humorist.

I urge people to support, first of all, my Motions Nos. 12 and 17 for the reasons I have already laid out. It would make the bill stronger. It would make it more palatable to many Canadians and give more direct instructions to our ministers. I also urge them to support Motions Nos. 20, 21 and 23 which will delete the copyright provisions.

It was the right thing to do in committee and we had a deal to do that in committee. The fact that it was not done there is unfortunate, but we can fix it here today by deleting those clauses and then doing a proper job of copyright review in committee. That is the way it should be done. That is the proper way to make legislation. To just throw it in an omnibus fashion at the end of the bill is a travesty for the archivists and librarians who just want to put their organization together. It has made it controversial when it should have been straightforward.

I urge all people to follow that course of action. I look forward to the debate. I hope the government will support these motions.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

There are 23 motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-36.

Motions Nos. 1, 3 to 11, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19 and 22 will not be selected by the Chair because they could have been brought forward in committee.

Motions Nos. 2 and 15 will not be selected by the Chair because they were lost in committee.

All remaining motions have been examined and the Chair is satisfied that they meet the guidelines expressed in the note to Standing Order 76.1(5) regarding the selection of motions in amendment at the report stage.

Motions Nos. 12, 17, 20, 21 and 23 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 12, 17, 20, 21 and 23 to the House.

Business of the House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased over the following weeks to continue to elaborate on the program from now until December 12 for the benefit of the hon. member and for anyone else. More specifically, about the following week, I wish to express the following by way of the business statement.

This afternoon, we will continue with the debate on the opposition motion.

Tomorrow, the House will return to the motion to refer Bill C-49, the electoral boundaries bill, to committee before second reading. This will be followed by Bill C-45, the corporate liability bill, or Westray bill if you like, and Bill C-34, the ethics commissioner bill.

On Monday, we will begin with bills not completed this week, Friday in particular. We will then proceed to Bill C-46, respecting market fraud, Bill C-50 respecting veterans, Bill C-17, the public safety bill, and finally Bill C-36, the Library and Archives of Canada bill.

Tuesday will be an allotted day.

On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will begin consideration of Bill C-48, respecting resource taxation, and will then return to any of the business just listed that has not been completed.

Committees of the House

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage regarding its order of reference of Tuesday, May 27, 2003, in relation to Bill C-36, an act to establish the Library and Archives of Canada, to amend the Copyright Act and to amend certain Acts in consequence.

Having carefully considered Bill C-36, the committee has agreed to report it with amendments.

Terrorism

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise in the House today to respond to the statements made by the Solicitor General on the question of national security, and the report that is being tabled in the House.

First off, the NDP has been a party in this Parliament that has stood up time and again to speak out and express what I think are the really very deep concerns of Canadians around issues of security as well as the increasing use of very substantive strong legislative powers, such as Bill C-36, which go far beyond the purview of dealing with security and which move us into the environment of fundamental civil liberties, a right to privacy and respect for the rights of individuals.

In our party, our former House leader, the member for Winnipeg—Transcona, our former justice critic, our current justice critic, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, as well as the member for Windsor—St. Clair, in fact all of us in our caucus, have really monitored and analyzed the government's performance and progress or lack thereof on the issue of national security.

Since the passage of Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism legislation, in December 2001, we have had increasing concerns about what is happening as a result of this legislation, as well as other legislation that has been approved and is currently in the process of being debated, legislation such as Bill C-17, the public safety act which is currently before the House and Bill C-18, the new citizens act. What holds these pieces of legislation together is they all contain extraordinary powers that when used by organizations like CSIS or the RCMP, can fundamentally violate the rights of individual Canadians.

While the minister has said today that there is a threat against Canada in terms of terrorism, it is most important that we ensure the war on terrorism does not also become a war on targeted minorities, especially those Canadians of Middle Eastern background or from the Muslim community.

We have been monitoring various cases that have taken place in Canada. We are very aware of the fact that there has been an increase in problems at border crossings for Canadians. They are being held up, being fingerprinted, having mug shots taken and being turned back. We are seeing an increase of racial profiling take place.

The whole question of the harmonization of our borders with the U.S. under the guise of security is something that should be of deep concern to us. One of the fundamental problems is whether we have adequate civilian oversight in terms of what is taking place as a result of this legislation being implemented and others that are now about to be approved through the House.

Even over the last few days, in the House of Commons in question period, the Solicitor General has been questioned by members of the opposition, including our party, about the role that CSIS has played. While in his statement today the minister claims that this department acts in full cooperation with all other federal departments, clearly what is coming out of the trial which is underway in Vancouver on the Air India case are some very serious questions about the lack of cooperation and the territorialism between the RCMP and CSIS.

We have a very significant concern about the nature of the work of CSIS as it is implemented as a result of legislation like Bill C-36, and who is actually protecting the civil liberties of Canadians.

I notice that today in the minister's statement that he barely mentioned that element. It seems to us that this is a fundamental question which the government needs to monitor in terms of, as he himself has argued today in the House, legislation that has incredibly strong powers.

We want to know why the Solicitor General is not taking the necessary steps to ensure there is proper civilian oversight of Canada's secret police. We want to know why there is not adequate civilian oversight on legislation like Bill C-36. We want to know how groups can be added to lists and yet there is not adequate disclosure for the reasons behind it.

However the biggest concern we have and one which has been expressed by many Canadians is that the legislation would create a political and social environment where people become suspect on the basis of how they look, where they come from or what their religion is.

I see the Solicitor General smiling at this but this is a very serious question. We have cases in Canada, such as the case of Mohamed Harkat who has been in jail since December 2002. We have the case of Mahmoud Jaballah who has been in jail since August 2001 on the basis of security certificates. A couple of cases were recently shut down by a judge as not having merit.

Today I will be going to the citizenship committee where we are beginning clause by clause debate on Bill C-18 where the use of security certificates will now be extended into possible use against citizens. The net is widening and the powers are widening and it is done, we hear from the government, on the basis of protecting Canadian security.

What about the protections of our democratic rights? Who in the government, what agency, what body is providing that kind of accountability so Canadians can be assured that the legislation, which was previously approved, does not go so far down the road that we have fundamentally changed the nature of our society?

We appreciate the fact that the report has been tabled today but we want to say in response that we have deep fears and concerns about the report, about the powers that have been given to CSIS and other law enforcement agencies, and about the continual undermining and erosion of democratic rights and civil liberties in the country based on the guise of security. This is something that we will continue to speak out on in the House to ensure that the government is held to account.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to comment on the minister's statement on security, which is a very important issue in this country at this time.

Unfortunately, the minister's statements this morning do not give any indication that the country's security has improved.

It is wonderful the minister has come here this morning to tell us that he recognizes his obligation to report to this House and to report to Canadians about the state of security. Unfortunately, he has not provided the necessary assurances that we are looking ahead. This seems to be very much a status quo report of what has happened since the time of the threat to North America being augmented by the attacks on Washington and New York City. We need to be as cognizant of the fact that the world has changed substantially and that with these changes we must be proactive in meeting the challenges head on.

The threat of terrorism is real, as the minister said, but it exists beyond our own borders. The attacks on the United States have been a harsh reality check for everyone. We need to work cooperatively with all elements of security around the world. We have to be very proactive, as the minister has recognized by ending financing of terrorism. We must ensure that no one is left with the inaccurate opinion that Canada is a safe haven for terrorists.

As we have witnessed in the past number of days with a warning from our closest ally south of the border, the United States, we must work cooperatively to enhance the exchange of information among nations if we are to succeed in eradicating terrorism. We must be diligent in our own security forces in ensuring the sharing of information between our forces here at home, and finding ways of intensifying and accelerating the exchange of operational information, especially regarding the movement of terrorism, forged travel documents, traffic in arms, the use of communication technology and the possession of weapons of mass destruction by terrorist groups. This is an ongoing challenge, admittedly, and our intelligence agencies in Canada have worked very diligently but under sometimes strained circumstances. I would suggest their resources do have to be increased significantly.

As American Ambassador Paul Cellucci said quite recently, security trumps trade. We must be cognizant of the broader implications for not acting upon the current situation. We must commit to work closely with the United Nations and other international organizations, including the G-8, in the fight against terrorism. Clearly, it does not stop at our border. In so doing, the ultimate goal should be the protection of the Canadian public and a warning system that provides advance notice against threats to North American security.

The national extension of NATO is a security perimeter, a North American security perimeter, and is a policy I believe we should examine. CSIS works with over 230 foreign agencies in over 130 countries, but this government can do more to facilitate action against terrorism. I believe we should certainly be examining the need for CSIS to have a presence abroad that would include foreign intelligence gathering capability.

The Anti-terrorism Act, Bill C-36, which is now in effect, does give the government strong powers, powers which provide the government the ability to create the list of terrorist entities that are currently based on intelligent reports and information. A balanced approach must be always be taken, however I believe this capability has not been used effectively since this act's inception. The information must be accurate at all times and acted upon to serve its basic purpose.

This alone is not enough. We must see the inclusion of the 26 terrorist entities on the list as a positive move, but Canada must embrace a spirit of cooperation with other countries to regard this as a very real action against terrorism. A strong North American security perimeter will be needed and Canada must work closely with our North American partners to develop such a plan.

There are a number of ways in which we can build upon the excellent work of the men and women who are tasked with the security of Canada. Ports police should be examined. We should very much move toward securing the ports of North America and Canada. This alone is perhaps the biggest threat to North American security, with the number of container ships that move into Canada every day, the amount of traffic that comes into these ports and the ability to bring anything from child pornography to a nuclear bomb into this country. I do not want to sound alarmist but with the number of containers coming into Canada we have to do more to secure our ports.

Targeted resources for our Coast Guard, military and frontline law enforcement must be pursued. This is a strong priority at this time in our country's history. We need strong, effective leadership on this account. I would urge the Solicitor General to make strong representations to his cabinet colleagues to increase resources in these areas. This will be the basis for providing Canadians with a plan of action, a plan of action in response to the cowardly acts of terrorism at home and abroad.

We applaud the job of CSIS but we realize as a nation that we must maintain our resolve and we must stand with those individuals; stand on guard for all Canadians.

The Solicitor General has an important historic role to play in Canada's future on this file. We wish him well in this regard. We appreciate him bringing this information before the House.

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the statement made by the Solicitor General, I must echo the sentiments expressed by my colleague from the Canadian Alliance.

This statement is useless. It contains no new information. A year and a half after the events of September 11, 2001, the government tells us that terrorism could affect Canada and Quebec. Everyone knows this, this statement contains nothing new.

This statement simply takes up time in the House to tell us what everyone knows. We know that terrorism could strike Canada and Quebec. Why bother making a statement about it? Again, it is so the minister can use time use time in the House to say nothing.

At some point, whether in committee or in the House, he needs to answer instead of making statements that are obvious to everyone. We do not have certain information on specific issues. I have been asked questions about the sponsorships program. We asked him how many files were under investigation. How many files were transferred to the RCMP? How many charges have been laid in relation to the sponsorship program?

Yet, the Solicitor General never has anything to say about these issues. That is when he should be making statements. But today, what new policy did he announce? What is the organization or department that he could have created to deal with the problem of national security?

There was nothing new. He just wanted to take time in the House to make a statement in front of the television cameras. That is about the only time we get to see him these days, on television. He needs to answer our questions about various situations we ask him about, but when we do, he says nothing.

During a meeting of ministers of justice at the G-8 summit in Paris, he was ridiculed. All of the other countries were asking him, “What are you going to do about the national security situation in your country?” All the Solicitor General did was mention the measures he has taken, such as Bill C-36, the Anti-terrorism Act, or Bill C-17.

He takes his orders from the United States. We have lost some fundamental rights and we also have a problem with privacy rights. The Solicitor General has created nothing new. All he has done is tell us what has been done over the last year and a half. Is this a situation that should continue or should it improve?

In his statement we see that CSIS is doing some new work, that it is dealing with more information, which is completely false. Whenever he is asked questions on this subject in committee, the Solicitor General can say nothing. He hides behind the confidentiality of CSIS and we cannot get any information out of him.

This Solicitor General took up his position at a very critical time, but since then he has been very quiet, except for coming here to announce that another organization has been put on the list of terrorist entities. Today, he has told us absolutely nothing new in terms of policy.

Why is it that we cannot use codes like the United States does, if there are threats or dangerous situations on the horizon? They talk about code red, code orange, code yellow, to let the public know whether the threats are real or not. The Solicitor General has no vision and he does not inform the public, except to deliver a completely meaningless statement. I repeat: his statement is meaningless. All he has done is make a statement about something we have all known about for a year and a half.

When the G-8 justice ministers met, he could have been more specific. This Solicitor General said: “Before an identity card including biometrics and fingerprints, is issued, privacy issues will have to be considered”.

I was there and I can tell the House that when the Solicitor General raised this point, he was rebuffed by the representatives of the seven other countries, as well as the European Union. He did not even get up; he did not take up the torch and say, “We have to be careful when dealing with a misconception; we must not give the public a false impression”.

They are undermining fundamental rights; they are vindicating Bin Laden, who orchestrated a totally senseless act on September 11. Is Canada truly threatened? No one knows. We are told that there are potential threats.

However, in making useless statements and addressing this issue yet again, one year and one-half years after the fact, the purpose is not to alarm the public, it is merely an attempt to keep people informed, to ask them to stay on their guard and to tell them that we absolutely have to pass legislation to protect our nation and keep it safe. Come on.

The Solicitor General is only making these statements to open the door to other antiterrorism bills, such as Bills C-36 and C-17. Consider Bill C-17. Whenever people, whether it is you, I or one of my hon. colleagues, travel outside or inside Canada or Quebec, their personal information is collected just in case an officer suspects that such individuals have ties to terrorists. Come on.

Once again, the RCMP will use these lists to obtain information blindly, which goes against our privacy. No one here, in Canada or Quebec, will be able to ask that this information be removed if no such link to terrorists is found. The assumption here is that any of us could be a terrorist.

But once again, today, I am obliged to comment on such a hollow statement. Other things could have been discussed today, instead of this.

We know that there are potential terrorists throughout the world, particularly in free countries such as ours. But there is an attempt here to cost this country and Quebec all their hard-earned freedom and democracy because the current argument is based on hypothesis. If such situations do exist, we would ask that such information be provided when we ask for it. The same goes for the sponsorship program. The Solicitor General should answer questions, when asked.

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the official opposition, the Canadian Alliance, I welcome this opportunity to respond to the Solicitor General's statement. I must question why the statement was made. The Solicitor General, other than tabling the Canadian Security Intelligence Service public report, provided us with absolutely no new information or updates on the status of security in this country. Repeatedly the Solicitor General stated:

We must acknowledge that Canada is threatened by terrorism. Recent events remind us that Canada is not immune from the threat or from acts of terrorism.

The Solicitor General and the government should have recognized this long before September 11. Canada is not immune and was not immune from terrorism.

I stood in the House together with many of my Canadian Alliance colleagues months prior to September 11 condemning the government and questioning it for its failure to take the threat of terrorism and the threat of organized crime in this country seriously. Since 9/11 we have repeatedly demanded that the government improve the intelligence capability of our security forces by providing them with the much needed resources to do their job effectively.

We have repeatedly condemned the government for the inordinate amount of time it took to compile the initial listing of terrorist entities and the snail's pace at which it brought other names forward to be added to that list. Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism act, received royal assent in December 2001. It is a year and a half later and only 26 entities are listed as terrorist organizations, while the United Nations' list includes and identifies some 200.

Once again I take great exception to the Solicitor General's contention that the government's efforts to combat terrorism have “been both comprehensive and balanced”.

If, as we have said repeatedly, the government is truly committed to the global war on terrorism, the Solicitor General should be doing much more, such as identifying and listing the entities at a much faster rate and significantly increasing the resources to both CSIS and the RCMP. The government should be tightening airport and port security. It should be providing CSIS with the power and the authority to operate abroad rather than relying and piggybacking on other foreign countries for intelligence information.

As a member of the Subcommittee on National Security, I have repeatedly questioned witnesses regarding whether or not the powers of CSIS should be expanded, or whether a new and separate agency should be established based on differing opinions and different individuals coming forward with different ideas regarding this.

In 2002 Richard Fadden, the former deputy clerk of the Privy Council, publicly questioned if it was “time to think about a formalized capacity to collect foreign intelligence”.

Although the director of CSIS disputes it, many experts claim that CSIS is limited by law from taking an offensive stance with overseas espionage, relying primarily on the help of spy services from other countries for its external intelligence. Furthermore, a federal study concluded that Canada needs overseas units to intercept and obstruct criminals and/or their illegal commodities from reaching Canadian shores.

The former foreign affairs minister, and one of the Liberal leadership hopefuls, is on record as stating that rather than expanding foreign intelligence capabilities to CSIS, he would prefer a separate agency established within foreign affairs, much like the United States' Central Intelligence Agency.

A number of security experts have strongly suggested that the government establish a formal ministry of national security headed by a single cabinet minister with foreign intelligence capabilities. This recommendation was made in respect to concerns raised in 1996 by the Auditor General that there was within our national security information systems “a pattern of inadequate information to support front line officials responsible for national security”. In other words, put it under one cabinet post, under one portfolio.

Many concerns have been raised regarding the lack of coordination and cooperation within the 17 different federal departments and agencies with national security responsibilities. Yet, the present Solicitor General and other solicitor generals have failed to address the Auditor General's 1996 findings. The Solicitor General has failed to initiate the debate regarding establishing a new national security ministry. He has failed to provide our security forces with the power and capabilities to collect foreign intelligence.

We continually hear how important it is that we rely on foreign countries. We agree it is important that we need to coordinate a network but we have no, or very little, capability to gather our own information.

Therefore, I take great exception to the Solicitor General's statement that CSIS has significantly increased its information exchange with its partners. I take great exception to the assertion that Canada has become increasingly more involved in the campaign against terror. More important, I take great exception to the Solicitor General coming to the House today and making a statement on security that provides absolutely no new information, no new announcements and no new updates as to the state of security in this country.

Library and Archives of Canada Act

[The Speaker]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-36.

[Jim Abbott, Canadian Alliance, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak specifically to a couple of clauses in Bill C-36 and in particular how they relate to the Copyright Act. I refer specifically to clauses 26 and 27 on which we have to do a quick review.

As the member just mentioned, we have shared some time together on the Standing Committee of Canadian Heritage which is presently wrestling with a number of issues relating to copyright.

It is my position, and it was expressed recently by somebody who knows well, that Bill C-32, when it went through the process of becoming legislation in 1996 and enacted in 1997, basically exacerbated the complexities of what was already an overly complex bill.

The concern of the bureaucracy at this point, as I understand it, is that they not get into amending the Copyright Act too quickly and that in fact they do a proper job.

What we are dealing with in committee is the World Intellectual Property Organization treaty, otherwise known as WIPO, which Canada signed but has not ratified. At this particular point the world copyright treaty and the world performances and phonograms treaty, otherwise known as the WCT and the WPPT, are both in limbo as far as Canada is concerned.

The best advice that we have at this particular point from the people involved in the heritage and the industry ministries, the bureaucrats, is that we have to amend domestic legislation before we can get into actual ratification legislation for us to be part of the WIPO treaties.

The reason I mention this as a background is that it adds to the fact that the Minister of Canadian Heritage has said that she could not envision making any changes to the Copyright Act as presently legislated without those changes being taken in their entirety. We have had a stiff arm from the minister and from her bureaucracy to any changes that are absolutely essential to the Copyright Act.

Problems are currently being created by the Copyright Act, problems that in fact have an awful lot to do with employment, particularly in the broadcast industry. These problems, which were created and built into Bill C-32 at the time that it was enacted, were built into it in such a way that people in the broadcasting industry are presently being laid off. Therefore we are talking about something urgent.

The difficulty to this point has been that the minister has refused to consider any idea at all of making amendments to the Copyright Act. The position of the Canadian Alliance and myself has been that this is bogus. There is no reason in the world why she could not have made those changes.

I draw to the attention of the House that the minister has indicated support, for example, for Bill S-20, presently going through the other place, with respect to photographic works. This is a bill that would amend the Copyright Act.

Therefore, apart from Bill C-36, out of one side of her mouth she has said that she will have nothing to do with changing the copyright bill but out of the other side of her mouth she has said that Bill S-20 is fine, in spite of the fact that it would alter the Copyright Act.

Now we come clauses 26 and 27 in Bill C-36 which both call for changes to the Copyright Act. Effectively what I am doing today is challenging the minister. Seeing as she must be prepared to go further, not only by her support of Bill S-20 but also by her support and the tabling of this legislation to change the Copyright Act as contained in Bill C-36, I challenge her to do so.

It is interesting that the clauses, which are so vexatious and create the problems, particularly for small market broadcasters, are contained in section 30 of the Copyright Act. However the minister is prepared to change section 30.5 of the Copyright Act but I want to deal with section 30.8. It is interesting that she is changing the Copyright Act to allow for this legislation in subsection 30.8(7). Well section 30.8, which is built into the Copyright Act, is the one that is the problem. My thesis of course is that if she is prepared to change subsection 30.8(7) for the purposes of this act, surely as an amendment in committee she and the government must be prepared to accept an amendment to section 30.8.

Sections 30.8 and 30.9 of the Copyright Act have to do with the right of broadcasters to do electronic transfer, a transfer of medium. It is referred to as ephemeral rights. Ephemeral simply means an electronic transfer that does not create any value. It simply takes place. If we look at section 30.8 of the Copyright Act it says:

It is not an infringement of copyright for a programming undertaking to fix or reproduce in accordance with this section a performer's performance or work, other than....

And it goes through that. I draw members' attention to the fact that it says “It is not an infringement of copyright for programming”. It then goes through paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) and then subsections (2) to (11) inclusive and gives all of the reasons why it is not an infringement of copyright.

However a flaw was built into not only section 30.8 but also section 30.9, which have to do with a different way of fixing the music, that is electronically creating a record of the music, and in spite of the length of these sections in the Copyright Act, they would be annihilated or wiped out.

The minister is prepared to change subsection (7). I am simply asking her to delete subsection (8) which reads:

This section does not apply where a licence is available from a collective society to make the fixation or reproduction of the performer's performance, work or sound recording.

We would also delete subsection 30.9(6) of the Copyright Act which reads:

This section does not apply if a licence is available from a collective society to reproduce the sound recording, performer's performance or work.

If I have not been clear to this point I want to point out that sections 30.8 and 30.9 are about exceptions. A the time the copyright bill was enacted there were no collectives in place. Therefore it was the clear intention of the government and of the minister, who was the minister at the time, that these exceptions would exist for the broadcast industry.

What basically happened was that there were side negotiations quite literally out in the hallway, which I saw with my own eyes, between the Bloc Quebecois, which, as we will recall, was the official opposition in the 1993 Parliament, and the parliamentary secretary to the minister to get the bill approved by an artificial deadline that the Minister of Canadian Heritage put into place. During the dickering and the give and take that took place what the Bloc member got from the parliamentary secretary was these clauses that annihilate the exemptions.

A colleague of mine was just telling me about a small radio station in Fort McMurray, Alberta. We can imagine that the Fort McMurray radio station does not have a giant marketplace and does not have a tremendous amount of revenue. My colleague was shown a cheque by that radio station manager payable to the collective of over $20,000. In my constituency, in Cranbrook, British Columbia, we are looking at a radio station that must lay off an individual from the radio station which is already bare bones because its cheque is $57,000 which is more than a year's salary for a nominal worker at a radio station. We are talking about legislation, which was ill-conceived, done in haste, done in compromise and done in give and take, that is costing jobs in the Canadian broadcasting industry.

What is it about? When a radio station purchases a piece of music from a publisher a royalty is paid. The royalty is paid to the company which then goes through to the artist and so on and so forth. That is fine. They are receiving value.

Let us say that it is fixed on CD. They then would take the CD and historically they put the CD into a CD player, one of a bank of CD players. They would program that CD player: number one would play track 6, number two would play track 2 and number three would play track 5 or whatever the numbers were. Then the disc jockeys, when they were talking on the radio and the next song was up, they would simply push the button and then the CD would turn, track 4 would play and away it would go.

Now there is value there because when the radio station plays the music it has the opportunity to collect money from the advertisers who advertise for the people listening to the radio station that is playing the music.

Everything is fine up to that point except that technology has caught up to the point that rather than the disc jockeys having to put those individual CDs into the players, select the tracks and press the buttons, now a programmer simply takes those cuts and puts them on to a hard drive. The disc jockeys now only have to press a button and away it goes.

However what have we done? We have moved the digital image from the CD, or whatever the recorded medium was, which creates the audio that we hear on our car radios, into the hard drive. That is all. There is no value there. It is simply an easier way for the radio station to perform this task. In addition, there is now the transfer sometimes of that digital imagery by satellite or by broadband.

It is the difference between physically putting a CD into a FedEx package and shipping it across the country and then someone playing track 4 off there or by pressing a button and instantly, by broadband or satellite, that digital image goes from this computer to that computer. That is all it is. There is nothing more to it than that.

What has happened is that the industry has been smacked with a $7 million bill retroactive three years because it has been using new technology and receiving absolutely no value for it. This is the amazing thing about this particular exemption that was intended to be an exemption. It clearly and specifically states in sections 30.8 and 30.9 of the Copyright Act that the broadcasters have the right to do this.

The only reason they are being whacked with these millions of dollars very simply is that there was some dickering going on in the back hallway in Parliament during the committee process.

I come back to the bill we are talking about. Bill C-36 very clearly and specifically refers to the Copyright Act, subsection 30.8(7). I am very simply challenging the minister to do what is right for the broadcasters, to do what is right for the people in the broadcast industry and to simply extend the amendment to the Copyright Act to delete the next paragraph, that this section does not apply where a licence is available from a collective society to make the fixation or reproduction of the performer's performance, work or sound recording.

Somebody asked if it was not just a little too smart, with a bill dealing with the archives and the library, to try to extend this through to legislation that absolutely must be done. Was it not just a little too smart to make that connection? I say no, not at all. There is a principle here. The Copyright Act as it presently exists is wrong, absolutely wrong. It creates a penalty on broadcasters, on their business and on their employees. It creates a penalty that currently is costing jobs. It creates a penalty that is without principle a transfer of wealth from an industry which, although it is not on its backside, is an industry that does not have a lot of latitude on the profit side.

I would like the minister to realize that profit is not necessarily a dirty word. I would like the minister to realize that her backbenchers have been contacted by people from the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, from the local radio stations, explaining this to them, that there is support for this change.

Seeing as Bill C-36 will very likely pass, and certainly my caucus joins me in supporting the bill in principle so the bill can move to committee, we could have these necessary changes done in just a matter of a few days. This is long overdue because as we speak, people are receiving pink slips for absolutely no reason.

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak to Bill C-36, and act to establish the library and archives of Canada and to amend the Copyright Act.

Bill C-36 would create a new institution to be known as the library and archives of Canada which would be the successor to the National Library of Canada and the National Archives of Canada. The new bill would continue the existing powers and responsibilities accorded to the National Archives of Canada and the National Library of Canada under their respective statutes and would combine them into one statute.

The National Library of Canada and National Archives of Canada would have the same legal status. What does that mean? It would be a departmental agency within the Department of Canadian Heritage. It would be under the direction of the Librarian and Archivist of Canada. It would also be accountable to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

The bill would modernize the existing functions and powers of the two institutions. It uses neutral wording wherever possible and harmonizes activities that were previously conducted individually by both institutions. The bill introduces a new term, “documentary heritage”, to include both records and publications collected by the new institution. The more appropriate functional term, “publication”, has been used in place of the former term, “book”, and the definition of record has also been made functional rather than descriptive. A modernized legal deposit regime has been provided that would extend to electronic publications and a new power to preserve the documentary heritage of Canada as found on the Internet has also been introduced.

During the debate we have heard about the benefits that would be associated with the creation of this new library and archives of Canada. Generally we will find that there is consensus that indeed this is a good idea and it would certainly do an excellent job of protecting and monitoring Canada's documentary heritage. I do not think that we will find much disagreement about that here in the House.

I do not want to go over the same issues that have already been discussed. Instead, I would like to address a beneficial aspect of the bill that has been so far overlooked in the debate and that has to do with changes to the Copyright Act. I know that one of my colleagues has already addressed one element of the copyright issue, the one dealing with Internet sampling. However, Bill C-36 also contains other amendments to the Copyright Act that are absolutely necessary to the work of this brand new agency.

Copyright is an extremely complex and contentious issue. It has been so for a very long time. In fact, in the 19th century, Charles Dickens was angered by the fact that citizens of the United States were beyond the reach of British copyright law. They could copy and produce his work, and profit from his labour.

Today, ironically, the shoe is on the other foot. It is the giant American entertainment industry, among others, that is angered by pirated movies produced in Asia or music which is downloaded from the Internet. And it is not just music which is downloaded by 10, 13 or 14 year olds, it is also being downloaded by adults. I would like to add my voice to those who are angered by this pirating and downloading. I would even go so far as to say that what they are doing is tantamount to theft.

I believe it is trite law that one of the major concerns that is at the heart of any copyright debate is how the government balances the needs of the artist and those of the user. How do we ensure that an artist's work is protected and the artist is the only one who can profit from that work, while at the same time ensuring that those who want to use the work have reasonable access to it? We have heard of things like fair use and fair dealing.

This challenge is further complicated when there is a question of a deceased artist and we are into a grey area when we are dealing with unpublished works. Unfortunately for a library or an archive, this is exactly the kind of situation that can arise. For example, suppose a person receives a collection of documents from some notable Canadian. Can a researcher who discovers some overlooked short story use it in a novel or a non-fiction book or is such a jewel somehow the property of the author's estate or descendants? That is the kind of bedevilling question that this piece of legislation will attempt to address.

During the last review of the Copyright Act, which took place in 1997, the government put an end to perpetual protection of unpublished works and brought unpublished works into line with the general term of protection for copyright in Canada: life of the author plus 50 years. The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage will also be undertaking a further review of the Copyright Act, a mandatory review that is provided by section 92.

Along with the amendment, a five year transitional period was introduced at that time as a matter of courtesy to the estates of authors so their works would not fall into the public domain immediately. These provisions came into force on December 31, 1998. Unpublished works of authors who died more than 50 years before that date, that is, before 1948, would fall into the public domain on January 1, 2004. However, while the descendants of certain writers expressed concern about protecting their copyrights, there were a number of people, including academic historians, archivists, genealogists and others, who looked forward to seeing unpublished works enter into the public domain.

Therefore, what indeed has occurred is that the parties negotiated and agreed to a reasonable compromise and presented it to the government for consideration in this bill. As a result, the proposed legislation we are debating would make the following changes. First, unpublished works by authors who died before January 1, 1930, would be copyright protected until December 31, 2003. Second, for authors who died after December 31, 1929, and prior to January 1, 1949, their unpublished works would have copyright protection until December 31, 2017.

In both cases, any unpublished works that were published before their protection expires would be protected for an additional 20 years from the date of publication. The changes I have just described extend the term of protection for unpublished works, but we are also doing something to aid academic historians, archivists, genealogists and others.

Bill C-36 would amend section 30.21 of the Copyright Act to remove certain conditions that archival institutions must meet in order to make single copies of unpublished works. Such copies are used for the purposes of research and private study all the time. Section 30.21 currently states that a copy of an unpublished work which has been deposited before September 1, 1999, can only be made if the archive is unable to locate the copyright owner. It states that records must be kept of all copies made under this section. As members can imagine, this adds quite a burden to our archival facilities.

What would this bill do? The amendments contained in the library and archives of Canada Act would repeal both of these conditions. I am pleased to say that this change was agreed to by all stakeholders involved in the negotiations around the issue. As we can see, sometimes consultations do work and work extremely well. These changes are yet another tangible example of how the new library and archives of Canada would be given the tools, the mandate and the powers that are relevant to achieving its goal.

Our country's documentary heritage belongs to all of us and it must be made more accessible to Canadians. With these changes and the others discussed by my colleagues here in the House, we are putting in place an institution that I am sure all Canadians will cherish and be proud of.

Business of the house

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue with the opposition supply day motion that we commenced this morning.

Tomorrow we will resume the debate on Bill C-28, the budget implementation bill. This would be followed by Bill C-31, the pension bill of certain veterans and members of the RCMP. If and when this is completed, hopefully tomorrow, we would then resume consideration of Bill C-36, the archives bill, and possibly Bill C-17 on public safety.

Next week, as the hon. leader of the opposition in the House has stated, is a constituency week.

I have designated May 26 as an allotted day, although we are willing to have further conversations about that this afternoon.

On Tuesday, May 27, if Bill C-28 has not already been disposed of, we would at that point have to return to it. We would then turn to Bill C-25, the public service bill, followed by business not yet completed from this week.

This is the program at this juncture.

Library and Archives of Canada Act

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak in favour of Bill C-36.

This is a pivotal year. It is the 50th anniversary of the creation of the National Library, and we are now preparing the creation of a new cultural institution that will add to the achievements of the National Library so far.

It may seem odd to some that Canada's National Library is only 50 years old. After all, our country will be 136 years old in July, and the National Archives are 131.

In 1883, it was none other than Sir John A. Macdonald who mentioned that the Dominion of Canada should have a national library.

In 1944, a young MP by the name of Paul Martin—senior—also stressed the importance of creating such an institution. Let me quote him:

The National Library would be an additional symbol of those intangible qualities of mind and spirit, which in the long run make a country truly great. It would be a symbol, too, of the union of two cultures and their complementary contributions toward Canadian unity.

Obviously, there were other important reasons, albeit less symbolic, for the creation of a national library.

By the 1940s it was becoming obvious that the lack of a single national catalogue listing holdings of the most important Canadian libraries was seriously hampering both research and the inter-library lending and borrowing of materials. We have 790 such libraries in Canada now.

Moreover, the country also needed a vast national bibliography that would be kept up to date.

Finally, the National Library was also necessary to compile retrospective bibliographies that would enable Canada to meet its international obligations in this regard. This institution was also going to make it possible to collect and preserve works published in Canada and to make them accessible to the Canadian public.

That is interesting because the progress and the need to preserve and promote Canada's documentary heritage is once again pushing us to create a new cultural entity.

Some of my colleagues have already pointed out the benefits of the proposed legislation. Today, I would like to focus on a key element, namely the new power granted to the Library and Archives of Canada to periodically take samples of the documentary material accessible through the Internet.

To give members a sense of why this is important I would like to quote Mr. Paul LeClerc, president of the New York Public Library, who spoke in 1999 at Schaffer Library at Union College in New York. He said:

“It could be said that libraries have benefited from the most simple and most durable series of principles of all cultural businesses. Since the very beginning of their existence, which goes back to antiquity, libraries have had only three basic functions: to acquire material, to store and preserve it, and to make it accessible to readers”.

The National Library of Canada has carried out those functions with great distinction, and the new entity, the library and archives of Canada, will do so as well. The national headquarters, as hon. members know, is the fifth building this way on Wellington Street.

Indeed, the library and archives of Canada will continue to pursue all the activities now conducted separately by these two institutions. These include collecting Canada's documentary heritage by purchase, by agreement with other levels of government, legal deposit, collections of master copies of recordings and the transfer of Government of Canada records.

However, these traditional activities are supported and strengthened by a new method of building collections, Internet sampling, which will reflect Canadian society thanks to the virtual world.

For example, the library and archives of Canada may wish to preserve a copy of a website of a Canadian department store, let us say Hougen Centre in Yukon; or a beer company, such as Chilkoot Brewing in Whitehorse; or Air North airlines; or perhaps a fan site dedicated to a particular Canadian singer, such as Barbara Chamberlin from Yukon; or a site dealing with the prime ministers of Canada or indeed the deputy prime ministers of Canada, including Erik Nielsen from Yukon.

The purpose is to immortalize a sample of our era and of this new medium, which is both present and virtual and which is changing as fast as new technologies allow.

Taking these snapshots of the Internet that is accessible to the public without restriction is essential if the library and archives of Canada is to succeed in preserving for all future generations a record of the life we have led, the communication tools we have used and the technologies which assisted us.

A few minutes ago, I mentioned that the new institution would have the power to take samples from the Internet. It is important to specify that this only refers to Internet content that is accessible to the public without restriction. Also, it is important to add that even though it is solely for the purpose of preservation, permission to download this material may not be given unless the Copyright Act is amended. Bill C-36 therefore proposes the necessary changes.

These amendments have been developed in consultation with the Department of Industry. Even though the Copyright Act is under review, Bill C-36 has been written with the evolving nature of the current Copyright Act in mind so that it can adapt to future amendments to Canada's copyright regime.

I would like to say more, but I am running out of time. To conclude, I would like to remind the House that the new power to explore and record parts of Canada's presence on the Internet is an excellent example of the broadened mandate of the Library and Archives of Canada. For this reason, I support this bill and, like other Canadians, I welcome the creation of this new institution that will act as a new steward of Canada's documentary heritage.

As you know, this bill represents the realization of a commitment made by the government in its Speech from the Throne on September 30, 2002. At that time, we made a pledge to Canadians to improve access to the history and culture of our vast country, as well as to its other aspects.

I am very encouraged to underline the fact that there is a growing demand for this kind of knowledge. Canadians want to know more about the history and culture of their country, whether it is the genealogical details of their own family, the wonderful achievements of our writers and musicians, the contributions made by members of their community to the growth and development of Canada, or perhaps even the role played by the Government of Canada at some defining moment in our history.

It is the duty of our government to respond to this demand and the new knowledge institute this bill will create will be the ideal tool for attaining this objective. To that end, the Library and Archives of Canada will benefit from a much broader mandate than those of the two existing organizations.

The mandate for this new agency will be established on the foundation of the respective mandates of the National Library and the National Archives of Canada. However it will also include a new component, which is the interpretation of our heritage and the exhibitions of its collections.

The new organization will take advantage of all the resources and all the expertise of both original entities to fulfill this broader mandate. Think of all the possibilities that this represents. Think of all the new horizons that will soon open for us.

Already we have some sense of the tremendous potential of the library and archives of Canada. The two bodies are already working closely together to serve Canadians through the new Canadian Genealogy Centre.

In cooperation with the Department of Canadian Heritage and other partners, such as the Société de généalogie de l'Outaouais, the Library and Archives of Canada has launched this new website on genealogy and the history of families.

As the House no doubt knows, the Canadian Genealogy Centre is a one stop shop providing electronic access to the genealogical resources in Canada. The centre offers genealogical content, services, advice, research tools and opportunities to work online on joint projects, all in both official languages.

This service is offered in response to a growing demand for genealogical information from Canadians.

The goal of the centre is to foster the discovery of our roots and our family histories as a basic part of our Canadian heritage. At the same time, its mission is to encourage the use of genealogy and the resources available in libraries and archives as tools for lifelong learning.

In addition to this new centre, the National Archives collections will also be used to create the Portrait Gallery of Canada, a new jewel in the crown of our Canadian heritage.

The vision of the new Portrait Gallery of Canada is to emphasize portraits of people from all walks of life who have contributed to the development of Canada, not only decision makers and famous public figures but people from every social background. I think that it is a powerful example of equity and fairness.

The Portrait Gallery of Canada will link Canadians together through the preservation and consideration of values that have defined us in the past and that continue to support the vision of our existence as a nation, today and into the future.

This wonderful new facility will provide a unique visual history of Canada, interpreted on a human scale, through the faces of individuals who have shaped and continue to shape the history and culture of this nation.

Finally, it will link Canadians together through contemporary and historical exhibitions and new media accessible in person and through the virtual network.

The Canadian Genealogy Centre and the new Portrait Gallery are just two examples of the contribution made by the National Library and the National Archives. Indeed, the two entities already organize exhibitions that explore various aspects of their collections. I am certain that, strengthened by the new mandate provided by the bill, the library and archives of Canada will have no trouble carving our a niche for itself in the cultural sector, thanks to its exhibitions and interpretation activities.

In conclusion, I am happy to point out that the Library and Archives of Canada will take full advantage of new technologies to better respond to the ever growing desire of Canadians for simplified access to knowledge, to their history and to their documentary heritage in all its diversity.

These are some of the reasons why I support this bill. I encourage all members to join with me in voting in favour of Bill C-36, which will enable us to better promote our documentary heritage for the greater pleasure of those who want to gain a better knowledge of it.

I will close with a few personal comments. The first is a suggestion. In other jurisdictions where there has been an amalgamation, sometimes the actual name of the organization gets lost in telephone directories and government directories. It becomes very difficult to find the organization. If it is called archives and libraries Canada and someone is looking for libraries, it would not be under the “L” listings.

I hope that the people organizing directories in the government and information services and web pages will take that into account. A double listing is needed, one for “libraries” and one for “archives”. To a large extent those are separate functions and people will be looking for those individual functions.

I also want to pay tribute to the wonderful people who staff our libraries across the country. As I said, there are 790 libraries. In fact, our documentation is also found in 147 institutions internationally. Those people are the silent heroes who no one sees. They work very hard in very quiet places which often do not have windows. Those people have an impact on the future of our nation. Usually it is not dangerous work, but we must remember that the most beautiful part of our Parliament buildings was saved by a librarian who closed the metal door to the library. The rest of the building burned down but the most beautiful part was saved for our heritage. I think that was in 1916...

More important, librarians historically have been the gatekeepers by paper but now also by the Internet to a vast resource of knowledge for our children and our future. Many books have had a big influence on my life. Who Is The Chairman of This Meeting? would be one of them.

How many people, in the very difficult times in their lives through tragedy or desperation, have thought of the words of William Shakespeare “Come what come may, time and the hour run through the roughest day”?

How many people have not realized how important institutions such as this are when the veil of civilization is so thin as outlined in Lord of the Flies ? For those who say books and librarians do not have an impact, what impact has Kahlil Gibran's book The Prophet had or the Koran or the Bible on our civilization?

Librarians perform such a valid function for children. We all know the most influence in a child's life is in its formative years. I still remember the book The Little Engine That Could . It had an effect on my life.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise on behalf of the PC Party of Canada to speak to Bill C-36, an act to establish the library and archives of Canada, to amend the Copyright Act and to amend certain acts in consequence.

It is important to emphasize that the proposed new library and archives of Canada would have the exact same legal status as presently accorded to both the National Archives of Canada and the National Library. Bill C-36 endeavours to bring both these entities under one umbrella, which would be a departmental agency within the portfolio of the Department of Canadian Heritage.

The creation of the library and archives of Canada would be under the direction of the librarian and archivist of Canada, and accountable to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, as listed in schedule I.1 of the Financial Administration Act.

Most important, all employees of both the National Library and the National Archives of Canada would maintain their existing status as public servants as governed by the Public Service Staff Relations Act. There was some discussion about that from the member for Dartmouth, but perhaps she missed that part of the bill when she was reading it over.

It is important to note that this enactment would modernize the existing functions and powers of the two institutions, use new technology-neutral wording wherever possible, and harmonize activities that were previously conducted individually by both institutions.

The librarian and archivist of Canada, as head of the new institution, would be given additional power to intervene and request the transfer of records created by the Government of Canada when those records are determined to be at risk of serious damage or destruction. We have seen many instances in the past of records and documents in the archives having been destroyed because of neglect of the government.

This position would have the rank and the powers of a deputy head of a government department. It would be a governor in council appointment to serve at pleasure, as is the current status of the National Archivist and the National Librarian.

Bill C-36 would provide for the creation of an advisory council to advise the librarian and archivist of Canada in making known the documentary heritage to Canadians, and to anyone else who has an interest in Canada, and in facilitating access to such heritage.

All of us in this chamber understand the importance of history, tradition and heritage. It is in that vein that Bill C-36 and the establishment of an advisory council would help us all better access and understand Canada's documented heritage.

Some may wonder why it is necessary to appoint a council to achieve this. The mandate of the library and archives of Canada would be to make known the heritage of Canada more strongly than it was in the mandate of either the National Archives or the National Library. The mandate of the new library and archives of Canada would go beyond allowing Canadians to access their heritage, it would make known and facilitate access to Canada's vast and diverse documentary heritage.

This enhanced role would be best achieved with the advice of an independent council with relevant expertise while reflecting the diversity of Canada.

This piece of legislation would provide authors with protection in terms of unpublished works. The amendments, as advocated within Bill C-36, would provide for a longer period of protection for unpublished works by authors who died before 1999. The period of protection would obviously vary, depending on the author's death and the date of publication. However, this initiative is applauded and strongly supported by the PC Party of Canada.

Those who are following the debate today may be wondering what government records would be transferred to the library and archives of Canada. It should be noted that the existing power of the National Archivist is to identify records of historical or archival significance and that would be continued by the librarian and archivist of Canada.

In terms of the powers regarding the transfer of government records, the librarian and archivist would have the power to request the transfer of records with historical and archival value that in the opinion of the librarian and archivist would be at risk of serious damage or destruction. This would remedy an existing void in the National Archives of Canada Act. In order to fulfill its legislative mandate of preserving the documentary heritage of Canada, the librarian and the archivist must have the power to intervene when government records of significance are at risk in order to maintain and ensure their long term preservation. Bill C-36 would achieve this objective.

I alluded earlier to changes to the Copyright Act that would take place in order for the creation of the library of archives of Canada to move forward. Members will recall that in 1997 Bill C-32 significantly amended section 7 of the Copyright Act, which prior to this amendment meant that unpublished works had perpetual copyright protection. This amendment caused various controversies that eventually led the government to reduce the transitional periods.

Briefly, Bill C-36 prescribes for section 7 of the Copyright Act to be amended to allow the extension of the term of protection accorded to unpublished works of Canadian authors who died after 1929 but before 1949. This would be extended until 2017 as opposed to December 2003. This would allow the heirs of an author of such work an opportunity to publish previously unpublished work. If the work were to remain unpublished at the end of this 14 year period, the work would then enter the public domain. If the work were published in this period, it would then be accorded 20 years of copyright protection from the date of publication.

In addition, section 30.21 would be amended to remove the condition that archivists must keep a record of persons who access unpublished works for which copyright has not expired but for which the copyright owner cannot be located. This would remove a condition that is administratively cumbersome and imposes a financial impact that is particularly difficult for smaller archives with limited resources to sustain. On the whole, the Copyright Act is designed to provide a balance between protecting the rights of creators and the benefit to society of the dissemination of their work.

Under this bill, the library and archives of Canada would continue to make its vast holdings available subject to the application of the Copyright Act, as was previously carried out by the National Archives and the National Library. It is important to note that there is no contradiction or discrepancy between the mandate of the library and archives of Canada and the Copyright Act as they both seek to achieve complementary goals. The library and archives of Canada would continue practices permitted under the Copyright Act, to ensure the preservation of documentary heritage materials once within the permanent collection of the library and archives of Canada.

Finally, I would like to address one area before completing my remarks pertaining to this bill. It is clear that the purpose of the new library and archives of Canada would be to collect and to preserve records of significant importance to the Government of Canada. Under this new piece of legislation the library and archives of Canada would continue to collect and document the documentary heritage in the methods previously separately pursued by the National Archives and the National Library of Canada. Further, the library and archives of Canada would continue the responsibility of the National Archives to be the official repository of Government of Canada records.

In addition to these traditional powers, the wording has also been updated to be technology-neutral and the library and archives of Canada would have the new power to take periodic snap shots of the Canadian Internet. The purpose of this activity would be to ensure that the traditional published and unpublished forms of Canadian cultural expression, regardless of the medium used to create that expression, would be sealed and preserved.

It is evident from my remarks that the PC Party of Canada, for the most part, is in support of this legislation and will be supporting it as it goes through this place. We look forward to following the bill through its various stages in Parliament and in committee in the days and the weeks ahead.

I think this is a well-founded bill. It is based on something that was needed and actually makes sense. It is encouraging to see this bill placed before the House.

During the six years that I have been here we have all heard the stories of documents, national treasures, part of our history, and part of our culture being destroyed by leaky roofs, rain water, bursting pipes, cold temperatures, and humidity. This should never have been allowed to happen. After 10 years the government has finally recognized that if it did not do something, there would be nothing left.

I am glad that after a long time and a long wait, and after the destruction of part of our heritage that has occurred while we have been waiting, we have this bill before us. It is the intent of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada to support its progress through Parliament.

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-36 regarding the wisdom of the merger between the national archives and the national library. These are two cultural institutions that mean a great deal to me and also to Canadians and Canadian culture.

Within my first year of being an MP, and as our new culture critic, I was asked to comment on the consultation by Dr. John English on this subject. In 1998, to prepare a submission for Dr. English, I looked into the background of the library and the archives and frankly was not happy with what I found.

It was obvious that because of the serious cuts of the 1990s the archives and the library were both placed under stress and were in peril. The parliamentary allocation for the national archives in 1990 was $65 million and the allocation for the library was $40 million. By 1998 both institutions saw an actual cut of one-third and a real dollar or inflation adjusted cut amounting to one-half of their budgets. Suddenly archivists had to decide which historical collections of national significance were going into the blue box. The cuts meant that the papers of labour leaders, business leaders, politicians, feminists and journalists, plus aboriginal histories and the stories of new Canadians, were lost to historians forever because the collections were not being accepted and processed by an archive that was struggling to exist. This has meant that historians will look to our national collections for the stories of our ancestors and will find some of them missing.

Some Liberals have said that the cuts of the former finance minister were historic. In the case of the archives, I think the cuts have been anti-history. The archives were at least able to cope with the draconian cuts by trimming collections, but the library did not have this option because of the nature of their mandate. Parliament has dictated by law that the national library must collect two copies of every publication in Canada. It has no option about its acquisitions. We have told them to be the national repository of all our books, papers and magazines. This chamber has said that the national library is our collective meeting place for writers, poets, journalists and other muses. It represents the central coordinator for our greatest national literary network, our public libraries.

For the national library, those cuts meant that its physical plants deteriorated. There were staff cuts, there were roof leaks, the pipes burst and new books had to be put into boxes and then put into warehouses. The greatest enemy to preserving paper is water. A book does not survive when the roof leaks. Old paper copies of documents do not survive when the water pipes burst. Old diaries disintegrate when they are kept in cardboard boxes due to a lack of space and staff.

News reports say that there have been more 45 incidents in the last decade where water damage has threatened the national library and Archives collections housed at 395 Wellington Avenue. This has caused the damage and loss of over 25,000 works. Even attempts to improve the capital plant by building a new preservation centre in Gatineau have been a band-aid solution, for the cuts have meant a lot fewer archivists and without archivists no one takes care of the archives.

The report from Dr. English in the year 2000 called for greater administrative coordination between the two institutions, a coordinating committee of both institutions and the department and more record sharing to allow clients to access records from both institutions in one place. It said that the collection should focus only on Canadian content and that a general merger of everything but the management of the two institutions would be acceptable. However, he stopped short of recommending a complete merger. I will quote from his report. It said:

No brief from any major stakeholding organization recommended that the national archives and the national library be merged. Major archival and library organizations recommended that the positions of National Librarian and National Archivist be maintained as separate positions.

He also strongly supported the view that our archives should continue to be an archive for all Canadians, collecting records of national importance across the country, not just an archive for government records, a view that I strongly support.

The institutions crept along for years. The funding levels evened off at their reduced levels and did not really climb to match inflation. The good news, I guess, is that the Liberals have stopped making things worse, but the funding has not yet been restored.

A couple of interesting things have happened at the library over the last few years, the most exciting being the appointment of Roch Carrier as the national librarian. Mr. Carrier has been successful in raising the profile of the library and the problems at the library within the context of the importance of our national library to our national library system as a whole.

In 2000, in an address to the heritage committee on the book publishing industry, Roch Carrier said:

As national librarian, I must say bluntly, that I do not have the tools in some areas to fulfill our mandate to preserve the published heritage of Canada. The national treasure of original Canadian newspapers, for example, is sitting in horrendous conditions out in an industrial area of Ottawa--with bare, hot light bulbs dangling from the ceiling not far from very brittle, dry newsprint...This is a disaster waiting to happen.

This resulted in heritage committee recommendation 5.2, which stated:

The Committee recommends that in conjunction with the National Librarian and the National Archivist, the Department of Canadian Heritage immediately initiate a planning process to examine the long-term space and preservation needs of both the national archives and the national library.

Sadly, these three year old recommendations have not been acted on. Instead we have seen a continuation of the underfunding, no new building, and this bill calling for a formal merger. Bill C-36 says that the merger is not a cost saving exercise, but given the government's track record it is hard to trust that. I have no philosophical objection to merging these two institutions. I even think there is a strong case to be made that our beloved Library of Parliament should be looked at as an additional partner for merging with the new library and archives of Canada so the research and parliamentary capacity of the proposed institution would be increased and so parliamentarians would have easier access to the broader resources of the national library and Archives.

My quandary with Bill C-36 is not philosophical but is based on the fact that the most obvious and long-standing problems with these two important institutions, funding and mandate, are not being dealt with.

What I am prepared to do today is support the bill in principle, but I give the government warning that the following things need to be dealt with at committee for our support to continue: that the protection of the collection of the archives and library be the first priority in funding and mandate discussions; that no current employees will lose their jobs due to the merger; that the replacement of the roof of the building at 395 Wellington will be only the first step in upgrading and replacing the new institution; that the plans to upgrade and replace be presented to the committee during the bill's study; and that the long term possibility of also including the Library of Parliament in a real, full archival research and repository institution for the history of the country be considered.

I hope we will see for Bill C-36 that there will be a serious consideration within the heritage committee of some of these important factors and an opportunity for us to discuss these important institutions. I warn the government that my tenuous support for the bill will evaporate if I see that the rationale for this bill becomes simply a continuation of the Liberal policy of neglect of our cultural repositories.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will continue the speech that I started before oral question period regarding the bill to establish the Library and Archives of Canada. As I was saying earlier, there are several issues underlying this bill.

We, in the Bloc Quebecois, will not support this bill.

This new institution replaces the National Library and the National Archives of Canada and will be named Library and Archives of Canada. So there is a merger as well as a new name. It is difficult to oppose the name, and we have no problem with it. The problems come further on in the bill.

The library community, including the Association pour l'avancement des sciences et des techniques de la documentation, or ASTED, is not really in favour of a merger between the National Library and the National Archives of Canada because it believes that the missions of these two organizations are totally different. The National Library provide services to libraries and, on occasion, to people, whereas the National Archives are mostly responsible for the conservation of our documentary heritage. The Bloc Quebecois also finds it very difficult to reconcile the missions of both institutions because they have different goals and different objectives.

I received many letters from various libraries in Quebec detailing their concerns about this merger. Librarians and archivists receive very different training. The merger of these two institutions could create problems. The Bloc Quebecois believes, instead, that a more indepth study should have been done before the bill was introduced.

Another problem is that the librarian and archivist will be responsible for the administration of the agency. He or she will answer to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, while the head of this institution will be called the librarian and archivist and will be appointed by the governor in council.

It would have been preferable to have seen legislation similar to the Quebec National Library Act, which went much further in terms of appointing a committee to support the administrator. Five people were also appointed by the government on the recommendation of Quebec's minister for culture and communications. But after consulting with libraries and the publishing industry, as well as with writers' associations and universities, it was decided that three of these people had to be librarians. Of them, one had to be specialized in conservation, the other in mergers, and two people had to be appointed by the city of Montreal. Moreover, two library users, one of whom must be a resident of Montreal, must be elected by their peers, in accordance with the library's regulations.

After the appointment of a librarian and archivist, there is also mention of a committee, but without similar guidelines to ensure that this committee would be more transparent and would not necessarily answer to political authorities. Therefore, in terms of political power and institutions, the Liberal government has a tendency to want to combine the two without any watchdogs ensuring integrity and transparency.

In other areas we have seen how easy this is when reporting directly to a minister, because the guide posts are lacking for greater independence. We have seen the composition of the board of governors of the CBC, and how an institution that ought to be independent is not fully independent as far as policy and administration are concerned, often with the result that the outcome is not what one would expect. And that is unfortunate.

Once again, with this bill they have tried to take a tack that is a bit too close to power for our tastes, and will not give the leeway necessary for institutions of this type.

The Librarian and Archivist has one additional power. He can require government records or records of other libraries to be transferred if he is of the opinion that they are at risk of serious damage or destruction.

The Bloc Quebecois would like more information on these additional powers. The bill says nothing. Will the Librarian and Archivist be entitled to require the patriation of any record he deems to be at risk and if so, what does this comprise? We do not know enough on this to be able to assess the direction this bill is taking.

As far as political power and institutions are concerned, caution is required. Who will be responsible for evaluating the records? Perhaps the Librarian and Archivist ought not to hold all this power, for fear of abuse. The Bloc Quebecois will work to ensure that these additional powers are in line with the way the various libraries across Canada operate.

The mandate of the Librarian and Archivist, like that of the new institution bringing together the National Library and the National Archives, has been broadened to include the understanding and promotion of Canada's documentary heritage. This is the area in which there must be greater respect of what is being done in Canada.

I know about the Minister of Canadian Heritage's preoccupation, and that of her department. I know they want to have one Canada, coast to coast, to build a nation, without any differences, where history is a one way street and does not respect what is happening elsewhere. This represents an approach that we cannot support.

The Bloc Quebecois feels that the mission of the Librarian and Archivist of Canada must not become politicized. With the promotion of heritage included in its duties, the position is being turned into a political appointment, which runs counter to the primary mission of the Library and Archives of Canada.

This is why Quebec's legislation provided for increased transparency with respect to appointments, with respect to choosing the different people who will sit on the board of the Bibliothèque nationale du Québec. The Bloc Quebecois would like any references to understanding and promoting heritage to be withdrawn from the mission of the Librarian and Archivist of Canada.

The same thing is occurring with the mandate of the CBC. It refers to this notion of Canadian unity, which could prevent certain journalists from expressing themselves freely about what is happening on the ground, because of this dynamic, this “one nation, coast to coast” approach.

What we want is for the powers and responsibilities that are already given to the National Archives and the National Library through their respective legislation to be maintained. The mandate of the new agency is to be broadened to include interpreting our history, which refers to Canada's history.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage's press release states that the purpose of the bill is to give Canadians greater access to their history and culture. Why would the government want to broaden the mandate of the National Archives and the National Library to include interpreting Canada's history?

For example, depending on the university that students attend, and the province in which they live, Canada's history can be taught very differently. There are a thousand and one ways Canada's history can be interpreted. In any case, depending on one's perspective and depending on what a nation, like Quebec, has experienced, the perception of events can vary greatly.

The Library and Archives of Canada cannot promote its own interpretation of the history of Canada and try to convince the public of its historic value. The role of the Library and Archives of Canada should therefore be to make historical information available, and not to produce its own version and then propagate it across Canada as a propaganda tool.

I think that caution is in order. Thought should be given to broadening the debate and allowing the various interpretations of Canadian history to coexist in Canada. There is no need for this constant effort to promote a coast to coast identity which is the same from Prince Edward Island to British Columbia.

I know this because we travelled across Canada with the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. There are many realities in Canada, and this explains why Newfoundland is seeking to get a jurisdiction back. It also explains why, in Quebec, the situation has evolved in such a way that the interests of Quebec are often threatened by all sorts of interpretations made in the name of Canadian unity.

To have this new agency, the Library and Archives of Canada, interpret history so that it can be better understood by Canadians reflects incredible arrogance on the part of the federal government and basically has a political flavour. The Bloc Quebecois believes that the broader mandate given to the new agency is solely designed to serve objectives of propaganda in connection with Canadian unity. The new mandate is contrary to the neutrality objectives historically pursued by the National Library and the National Archives.

The government is trying to impose its own vision of Canadian history. The Bloc Quebecois will do everything in its power to preserve the exceptional reputation that the National Library and the National Archives have always enjoyed.

The Bloc Quebecois demands that any reference to the interpretation of the history of Canada be removed from the mandate of the Library and Archives of Canada. This is part of a Trudeau-style nation-building effort and, as I said, seeks to instill a sense of belonging based on a single version of the history of Canada.

There is one other irritant: the creation of an advisory council to be appointed by the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

As I was saying, we took a different approach when we instituted the Quebec National Library Act. The advisory council will advise the chief executive of the new agency on the promotion and accessibility of Canada's documentary heritage.

This is an extremely important role and requires transparency and freedom of action. Because of this arrangement, we have reason to believe that Canadian Heritage, with its vision of Canadian unity, may be able to influence this council and hinder it in some ways. The role of the council is to advise the Librarian and Archivist, to make the documentary heritage known to Canadians and to anyone with an interest in Canada, and to facilitate access to it. Members of the advisory council will still be appointed by the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

We feel it is unacceptable for council members to be selected by the heritage minister, particularly given the mandate of the new Library and Archives of Canada. Its supervisor will be the Minister of Heritage, whoever that will be when the bill takes effect.

Giving the council the mandate of promoting history and heritage makes for an undeniable lack of neutrality. We fault this also in other federal institutions that report to ministers and have a similar dynamic. The CBC is one patent example of this. If we add to this the fact that its members are appointed by the minister, how can the public be convinced of the council's neutrality?

Thus the Library and Archives of Canada are, or could be, politically influenced, because the Minister of Heritage has the power to appoint whomever she wants to the council. Greater transparency would have been preferable, through the appointment of people from the community as well as outsiders, ordinary citizens.

The Bloc Quebecois feels that the creation of an advisory council with the mandate of promoting the history of Canada is useless because this is contrary to its historical mandate. A new power aimed at preserving Canada's heritage on the Internet—another aspect of the bill—is allocated to the Librarian and Archivist.

I do not think that the Bloc Quebecois sees this new way of collecting information as innovative and indicative of a deep understanding of new information sources. However, everything seems to have been thrown together in the bill that is before us today. It is unfortunate because the Bloc Quebecois would have liked to support certain aspects of the bill, including this new power to preserve Canada's documentary heritage as found on the Internet. We cannot be against that.

However, we will oppose this bill because we are against the principle underlying another aspect of the bill. Because the government wants to mix together all kinds of issues in this bill, the Bloc Quebecois will not be able to support it. This is unfortunate, and I was very upset to have to say no. We will not be supporting this bill even though I found certain aspects of it very interesting and the idea of adjusting to new technologies very refreshing.

Another aspect of the bill is that it amends the Copyright Act by providing for a longerterm of protection for unpublished works ofauthors who died before 1949.

In 1997, substantial changes were made to the act through Bill C-32. Before these changes, unpublished works of authors enjoyed perpetual protection under the Copyright Act. The amendments made through Bill C-32 were very controversial. Historians, academics, archivists and genealogists put a lot of pressure on the government to shorten the transition period so that archival documents would become public more rapidly.

Those whose interests were compromised, namely the heirs of authors whose works would soon become public, launched a campaign to extend the protection for unpublished works so they would have more time.

We supported this amendment to section 7 of the Copyright Act. The amendment to subsection 7(4) would extend the copyright protection until December 31, 2003 for unpublished works of authors who died before January 1, 1930. New subsection 7(5) provides that, where the death of the author occurred before December 31, 1929 and before January 1, 1949, copyright on his or her unpublished works is protected until December 31, 2017. In either case, unpublished works published before the copyright protection has expired would be protected for another period of 20 years.

We are in favour of these amendments providing for a longer term of copyright protection to allow heirs to publish works that had remained unpublished. Also, if a particular work is published before its protection expires, the copyright is then extended by 20 years. This is a measure that the Bloc Quebecois approves. But here again, efforts were made to mix everything up and try to make more propaganda. That is unfortunate because, as a result, the Bloc Quebecois will not be able to support this bill.

Another aspect of the act is the Depository Services Program, or DSP, which was established in 1927 to supply libraries with government publications. It ensures that the Canadian public has equal and immediate access to Government of Canada information by distributing these publications to a network of more than 790 libraries in Canada and another 147 institutions around the world holding collections of Canadian government publications.

In September 2002, without any consultation of the public, this program was merged with government publishing at Communications Canada, and it is now administered by Communications Canada. Concern grew about the instability of this program in recent years. In November 2002, Communications Canada agreed to look into the matter. I am trying to provide a little background on how the change came about.

Discussions then started on a recommendation by members of the library community to transfer the DSP to the Library and Archives of Canada. While the federal government seems to be open to this suggestion, there has been no further contact with the library community, and nothing has filtered through the discussions between government agencies.

The Bloc Quebecois believes that the government should end its silence and discuss this openly with the library community. Moreover, the DSP ought to be integrated into the new institution proposed by the government as quickly as possible. It is not mentioned in the bill.

In short, we have objections regarding the bill to establish the Library and Archives of Canada. The Bloc Quebecois has reservations about the Library and Archives of Canada, because the library community is opposed to the merger bill, which makes us question its usefulness.

The Bloc Quebecois considers that the enlarged mandate of the new institution is aligned with Canadian propaganda goals, and that the new mandate will interfere with the neutrality the library and archives have always displayed. The federal government wants to impose its view of Canadian history, and the Bloc Quebecois knows what it is talking about when it says the federal government wants to impose its view.

The Bloc Quebecois also demands that all references to interpretation of the history of Canada, the goal of such interpretation being Trudeau-style “nation building”, and to instilling a feeling of belonging to a so-called Canadian version of the history of Canada, be removed from the mandate of the Library and Archives of Canada.

Further, it is unacceptable to see an advisory council selected by the Prime Minister alone. Here, too, we have concerns. The position of Librarian and Archivist of Canada thus becomes a political appointment, just like the council.

The Bloc Quebecois is in favour of the amendments to the Copyright Act. What is most frustrating is that we would have liked to split this bill with regard to the non-partisan aspects, such as the Copyright Act, and give our support. That would have provided much stronger protection for copyright, and thus, more time for the heirs to publish hitherto unpublished works. In addition, if a work is published before its protection expires, the copyright is prolonged by 20 years; the Bloc Quebecois thinks this is a good provision.

So, the general position with regard to this bill is to strongly encourage the federal government to split Bill C-36 in two, so that the positive measures related to copyright can be adopted. The Bloc Quebecois considers the part of the bill on the new Library and Archives of Canada to be pure Liberal government propaganda. The Bloc Quebecois will therefore vote against the bill, unless the bill is split in two, so that it can be studied more carefully.

I hope that the considerations mentioned by the Bloc will be taken into account. We do not oppose everything in the bill. We are not throwing the entire bill out. But it is a shame, because we cannot make any suggestions. The government should make an effort and listen to the Bloc and the other stakeholders, who are also concerned about these political appointments, be they at the CBC or the new Library and Archives of Canada. Obviously, there are political appointments.

Furthermore, the appointment of the entire committee will be political, because it will be appointed by the Minister of Canadian Heritage. She is known for using her influence to frequently silence administrators in institutions under her responsibility. This does not just happen at Canadian Heritage. It happens in other areas too.

I have outlined the Bloc's main points regarding Bill C-36, which is quite disappointing. As I stated at the beginning, since the Liberal Party came to power in 1993, the programs and bills from Heritage Canada, for one, are all identical, because the aim is to create a feeling of belonging from coast to coast.

It is well known that some subtleties are being overlooked. There are the Alliance members with their region. There are also subtleties with respect to Canada and its history. There are other subtleties in Quebec. Historians do not all share the same vision about Canada's birth. It is well known that the Minister of Canadian Heritage loves to minimize, for example, the birth of Quebec, by recalling other historical perspectives.

It would be extremely beneficial to this bill to show openness and understand certain aspects of the history of the birth of Quebec and Canada. An effort could at least have been made to try to better understand what is being said about some Canadian historians. As a result of the mandate given to the Library and Archives of Canada, the Bloc cannot support this bill.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on this bill.

Before getting into the various issues raised by Bill C-36, I would like to point out that, since the Liberals took office, all programs and bills from the Department of Canadian Heritage look alike and their main objective is to instill into the people of Quebec and the rest of Canada a strong sense of belonging to Canada.

It is a terrible shame that amendments to the Copyright Act were included in this bill. While these amendments seem to be good, in principle, they are not when we consider the direction this bill, an act to establish the Library and Archives of Canada, to amend the Copyright Act and to amend certain acts in consequence, was intended to take.

My point is that, because of many issues, we are against the principle of this bill. In the minutes to come, I will try to explain why we oppose it.

In a nutshell, the enactment creates the Library and Archives of Canada as the successor to the National Library and the National Archives of Canada. It provides for the appointment of this new agency's head, the Librarian and Archivist of Canada.

The mission of the new agency will be based on those of the National Library and the National Archives of Canada, and expand them to include the interpretation of Canadian history and the display of collections. The regime for legal deposit of publications has also been updated to provide for the deposit of electronic publications. A new power to preserve the documentary heritage of Canada as found on the Internet has also been introduced. These are essentially the objectives of the bill.

In addition, the bill amends the Copyright Act by providing for a longer term of protection for unpublished or posthumously published works of authors who died before 1949. The new terms of protection are extended for varying periods, depending on the date of the author's death and whether or not the work is published during the particular periods in question. Requirements for archives holding unpublished works in their collections that were deposited before 1999 to obtain consents from copyright holders for the making of certain copies of those works and related recordkeeping or owner-tracing requirements will be removed.

This enactment also makes consequential amendments to relevant legislation and contains transitional provisions and coordinating amendments.

So, when we analyze the bill, we find that it contains many important measures. The National Library and the National Archives of Canada will be replaced by the Library and Archives of Canada, and it is hard to oppose the renaming of these institutions.

We are not against this change. However, there are other measures that we do oppose. The library community, particularly the Association pour l'avancement des sciences et des techniques de la documentation, is not in favour of amalgamating the National Library and the National Archives of Canada. Why? It is because it believes that the two organizations have very distinct missions and approaches. The National Library is more at the service of libraries and, occasionally, of individuals, while the National Archives' mission is the conservation of Canada's heritage.

The Bloc Quebecois also believes that it is very difficult to reconcile both missions, since they pursue different objectives. We have the support of the Association pour l'avancement des sciences et des techniques de la documentation.

Furthermore, several libraries in Quebec sent me their thoughts on this amalgamation, indicating that they were against it. They believe, as we do, that being a librarian is quite different from being an archivist. Consequently, the amalgamation of both entities could create some problems. The Bloc Quebecois believes that a full analysis of the project should be conducted.

There is also the matter of the mandate of the head of Library and Archives of Canada. The public administration will be placed under the authority of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, but managed by a general administrator known as the Librarian and Archivist of Canada, who will be appointed by the governor in council.

The Bloc has some questions. The general administrator will have additional powers. He or she will have the power to ask for the transfer of documents from the Government of Canada or from other libraries, if he thinks that those documents might be damaged or destroyed.

Again, the government could have looked at what has been done at the Bibliothèque nationale du Québec as far as responsibilities are concerned. The Government of Quebec appointed trustworthy people, who are accountable to the Quebec minister of culture and communications. It also determined that other people from the library community, the publishing community, writers' associations and the universities would sit on the board. Three of these members have to be librarians. One of them has to be a conservation expert and another an exhibitions expert. These people also have to be appointed by the City of Montreal.

Two users are also members of the board. The Government of Quebec sought out citizens. One must reside in Montreal and be elected by his peers, in accordance with the library's regulations.

[Chuck Strahl, Canadian Alliance, Fraser Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak to the bill, an act to establish the Library and Archives of Canada, to amend the Copyright Act and to amend certain acts in consequence.

The primary purpose of the bill is to create a new federal agency that would combine the National Archives of Canada and the National Library of Canada. In a moment I will outline the positives of this new convergence, but I first want to state for the record the Canadian Alliance position with regard to this initiative and the legislation. We do have a policy, which people are welcome to look at on our website or elsewhere. The policy states: “The Canadian Alliance affirms the federal government's role in the preservation of Canada's natural and historical heritage, such as national parks, museums, archives and so on, and historic sites, for the benefit and enjoyment of all and as an enduring reminder to all Canadians of our common inheritance”.

As such, by the end of my speech I will be advising my Canadian Alliance colleagues to support Bill C-36. There will be many questions that will need to be answered in committee and I am sure we will have a full complement of witnesses before the committee. In general, the drift of the legislation is in the right direction. As to the specifics, of course the devil may be in the details but we do think that it is supportable.

There is a definition of the role of National Archives of Canada:

To preserve the collective memory of the nation and the government of Canada and contribute to the protection of rights and the enhancement of a sense of national identity: by acquiring, conserving and facilitating access to private and public records of national significance, and serving as the permanent repository of records of federal government institutions and ministerial records; by facilitating the management of records of federal government, institutions and ministerial records; and by encouraging archival activities and the archival community.

There are some things I will be saying about the preservation of records and of archiving important government documents, including documents of the cabinet, a little further on in my speech.

Right now the national archives are accessible to all Canadians and that will continue under the amalgamation of the Library of Canada and the archives.

The main role of the National Library of Canada is as follows: “...to preserve and promote...the published heritage of Canada”. The library is recognized as “one of the nation's foremost centres for research in Canadian Studies and as a showcase for Canadian literature and music”. The library is also accessible to all Canadians.

Bill C-36 will merge these two entities. We think that potentially there could be, and should be, some positive results for Canada's recorded and published history and heritage.

On a personal note, I remember that when my brother was doing research for a book he wrote about our family history he came to Ottawa and spent time at the National Archives. He eventually wrote a book and I am sure the National Library has a copy of it. The folks at the archives were most helpful. It is always amazing to me and to amateur historians like my brother how accessible the archives are, how helpful the folks are and how useful the information is when we are writing a book. In that case it was a family history, but it is certainly true for all Canadian history and studies.

The preservation of archival information of course is important. Clause 8 of the bill states, “The Librarian and Archivist may do anything that is conducive to the attainment of the objectives of the Library and Archives of Canada”. The list includes a lot of things: acquire publications; take measures to catalogue, of course; compile and maintain information; provide information, consultation and other lending services to any Canadian; establish programs and organize or encourage any activities, including exhibitions, publications and performances; enter into agreements with other libraries, archives or institutions, inside and outside Canada, to help preserve and encourage the understanding of our historical information; advise government institutions, including on ways to use the Internet to promote and provide information; and provide leadership and direction for library services for all government institutions. It goes on. There is much to do and of course they do a good job, even today under difficult circumstances. In other words, there is a very powerful mandate to assist the preservation of Canadian heritage.

For the purposes of preservation, Bill C-36 also allows the librarian and archivist to take a representative sample of the documentary material of interest to Canada that is accessible to the public without restriction through the Internet or any other similar medium. That also is in clause 8.

Again, increasing numbers of Canadians will take advantage of this service. Even those who cannot get to Ottawa will have new and improved access to documents through the Internet. The hope is that by providing this invaluable information to future historians, both amateur and professional, we will not only preserve but will better understand our past and apply it to today's concerns and issues and our culture.

The management of the combined archive and library should be more efficient by bringing the two organizations together. The collections will be combined and will be comprehensive, thereby increasing the efficiency and feasibility of information management. The convergence of human expertise and knowledge should increase the proficiency of information management. In other words, by bringing them together under one command and control we should be able to benefit from the immense amount of expertise in the two organizations right now.

The merging of these two institutions should provide synergy and efficiency in the delivery of internal human resources, financial, marketing and technology systems and so on. I say it should because it is not entirely clear from the briefing notes that we received from the department whether this will actually take place. In fact, the notes say there may actually be no cost savings from this merger. This should be investigated at committee.

It seems to me that by bringing together management systems under one aegis should provide some financial savings on everything from human resource management to technology systems. We will be looking at ways to do that. We encourage the committee to make sure that is done to the best of its ability.

There are some clauses in the bill on the access provisions. By unifying the two entities we hopefully will increase the visibility of Canada's heritage and history. We believe that the library and archives of Canada will provide integrated access to its collections by offering one stop access.

Again I will use the example of my brother's research. It would have been handy for him to go to one spot and ask for historical information for example on the original ships that brought over our ancestors and at the same time any other books on that subject. Many other people would be looking for different heritage information. In my case it is the Mennonite background and the Swedish background, or the “Swennonite” background, that I cherish. It could be one stop.

The library and archives of Canada would use the latest technology to collect and provide access to its collections. The library and archives of Canada would use web services for some of the following: the Canadian Genealogy Centre; Virtual Reference Canada; the Portrait Gallery of Canada; initiatives to preserve Canada's multicultural documentary heritage; services such as the interlibrary loan of publications and microfilms; programs to promote literacy; support for Canadians with print disabilities; and so on. It would improve access for all Canadians, even those who are unable to get to Ottawa to go through the documents on site.

We have some concerns about Bill C-36. There are things that need to be looked at in committee.

The documents I received from Heritage Canada indicate that the transition will cost $7.5 million over three years. There was also $15 million awarded in the 2003 budget for better short term protection of documents and artifacts. I am not sure if that $7.5 million is part of the $15 million, but regardless, preservation is necessary. We will try to figure out exactly what those costs are and whether there will be potential cost savings down the road. The bill was dropped on us late last week and we have yet to receive a briefing from the department. We are not sure what the $7.5 million includes. Is it just the accounting costs? Is it labour time costs? We are not sure but that will be looked into.

Again I emphasize that the documents from Heritage Canada admit that it is not a cost cutting exercise. While it may not be cost cutting, it does seem to me that there should be savings realized. We will be asking the department heads to explain why that does not take place. I certainly think it should.

There are also greater opportunities to involve more fully the private sector, people who can make use of this in a positive way. Perhaps there are revenue generating opportunities in this as well. Perhaps that will take place under the coalitions built among other libraries, both nationally and internationally.

For anyone who has looked at this file at all, there is a concern not so much with the bill but with the general preservation of our national archives. In the last couple of years taxpayers have spent approximately $4.5 million just to repair items damaged by water leaks and maintenance problems in the current archive buildings. It seems to me that the Department of Public Works and Government Services along with the archives and library when they get their act together have to quit the squabbling and find a solution to the accommodation and preservation of Canada's national archives.

There is no sense saving a copy of everything and putting it in a room where the water leaks into the cardboard box. If we are going to preserve this stuff, go through the expense of cataloguing it, accounting for it, preserving it and so on, then let us make sure it is preserved and not stuck in one of the leakiest buildings in Ottawa. I urge Public Works and Government Services and the archives and library to put the turf wars behind them and get at actually preserving the stuff we are talking about today. It is important information that needs to be preserved. Let us find a way of doing that quickly.

This next point is part of the work of any committee and any bill that comes before it. I would urge the committee, and again I am part of that, to make sure that we are getting value for the dollar under this proposal. At face value everything looks fine, and it always looks fine in a government briefing document. I have never seen one yet that looks as if we are about to waste a pile of money, but on the other hand there are enough examples of cost overruns. The Canadian War Museum is a prime example. Everyone is in favour of the war museum. We think it should go ahead and we are all in favour of it, but we have not even gotten the walls up and it is tens of millions of dollars over budget already.

Understandably there is going to be scrutiny at the committee level, as there should be. It is part of our job on all sides of the House to scrutinize that spending. I would urge all members to do that carefully because these sorts of bills have little surprises hidden in them if we do not do that properly.

It is also important to note that clause 8(g) of the bill says that the combined national archives and library is to “advise government institutions concerning the management of information produced or used by them and provide services for that purpose”. In other words, if there are ways to better manage it--and in the briefing notes it sounds good and the bill reads fine at first blush--we are going to want to know exactly how that management system is going to improve it.

Clause 12(1) of the bill, another important clause which I would urge interested archivists to browse, states:

No government or ministerial record, whether or not it is surplus property of a government institution, shall be disposed of, including by being destroyed, without the written consent of the Librarian and Archivist or of a person to whom the Librarian and Archivist has, in writing, delegated the power to give such consents.

It is tremendously important that people understand what is involved, that government bureaucrats understand what this actually means. It means there is an obligation among departmental employees to make sure that proper record keeping takes place and that archives are preserved not just when it is convenient, not just when they look good or when they have a glowing report, but that all records are to be preserved. In fact it says properly under clause 12 that no government or ministerial record shall be disposed of including by being destroyed.

In other words, just because it is a negative report or it is something someone does not like or hopes does not come up for his or her grandchildren to read, it is too bad. In the government, archives are archives. We preserve the good, the bad and the ugly. We take it all, preserve it all, so future historians will be able to learn from it and hopefully steer clear of some of the problems we have had, and even have currently, by making sure that record keeping is done properly.

I point out that we are once again embroiled in a controversy here in Parliament, in this case with the records kept by the business development bank, a semi arm's length corporation mandated by this House. What is interesting is the lack of proper record keeping and missing documents. Key documents that may or may not implicate the Prime Minister or others in business dealings or loan approvals, or whatever it might be, are suddenly missing from its archives.

The government is involved. It is getting and giving advice and doing studies and all the things that governments are involved in. Again, clause 12 says to keep the records, the good and the bad and understand that it is the law that they be maintained and given to the archives. Increasingly it will be electronic records and they too need to be preserved.

The Government of Canada needs to improve its information and record keeping practices. I am afraid the way the government will avoid this clause is it will just not create a record at all in the first place. That is one way around it.

On March 24 of this year, Canada's Information Commissioner said the following as reported in the Ottawa Citizen :

The most significant threat to open, accountable government is a crisis in information management in the federal Government of Canada.

The article went on to say:

Despite warnings to public servants that they must improve in such areas, federal officials are avoiding creating records, Mr. Reid said. Under the spectre of financial penalty or imprisonment for destroying or falsifying records, he added, officials are encouraged to make oral briefings or exchange information by e-mail to avoid creating permanent written records.

That is not the intent of clause 12 as I understand it. The clause says that the records are not to be destroyed. They are to be kept intact. They are to be passed along and archived so that all of us will have a chance to see them one day. In essence, although it is not in the bill, as a tangent of this, it is important to know that whistle-blowing legislation will be critical to solving this problem, where people actually have the gumption to stand up and be counted, make written proposals and written briefings for ministers, instead of just an oral chat around the coffee machine knowing that that cannot be archived, but on the other hand neither can we learn from mistakes.

There are many acts that are amended in consequence to this bill. Each one of them in and of itself is also important. For example, there are changes to the Yukon First Nations Land Claims Settlement Act, to which the member for Yukon will no doubt want to pay attention. There are changes to the National Archives Act. There are also changes to the Yukon First Nations Self-Government Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the proceeds of crime act, and the Public Sector Compensation Act. There is an important consequential change to the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement Act. The Financial Administration Act is another one. All of these will have to be looked at.

There is an important consequential change to the Copyright Act. This has been somewhat controversial. The issue of copyright protection is an important one and Canada has been less aggressive than most of its international competitors in linking information innovation to intellectual property or in protecting and promoting intellectual property rights. In fact, the Canadian Alliance member for Yorkton—Melville presented a private member's motion requesting the House of Commons to create a parliamentary committee to examine property rights, including copyright. Copyright is a section of property rights. It is important to do that.

The tricky issue raised by the bill concerning copyright is the need to balance the incentives created by copyright and patent protection with the public nature of the work of the authors and the artists. Since the government has recently undertaken quite an extensive review of copyright issues, I will look forward to the testimony of witnesses in committee on this issue.

I believe the industry committee as well will want to look at this, if not to study the entire bill, at least to look at the consequential amendments to the Copyright Act. We need to strike the balance between the rights of artists and the rights of their heirs to preserve their creations for the purposes of the heirs and the right of the public to have access after a certain amount of time to unpublished works.

It seems to me we have to balance that. This bill extends that by 15 years, which is a goodly length of time, considering we only reviewed this and made changes to the Copyright Act only four years ago. The expiration of that copyright protection is supposed to come up this following year. For unpublished works this extends it considerably. It has been quite controversial and that too will have to be looked at in committee, whether the 15 years is necessary or whether there is something in between next year and 15 that would be more appropriate.

It seems to me that eventually there will come a time when unpublished works of deceased artists will no longer be protected under this copyright legislation. We need to delve into that and the industry committee will have its part in ensuring it is of the right balance.

Overall, I will be encouraging my colleagues to support this at second reading in principle. It is sound management to bring the archives and the library together. I have the concerns, as I mentioned earlier, about cost savings and some of the other issues, and consequential amendments. It should be an easy bill to approve in committee, although once we are in there and the witnesses start telling us what those consequential amendments are, perhaps something will come up.

At this stage, we will be supporting the bill and look forward to the committee work to get into the nitty-gritty.

[Carole-Marie Allard, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, Thomas D'Arcy McGee, one of the fathers of Confederation, once said that there was a duty which especially belonged to Canada: to originate a history which the world would not willingly let die.

Today, 135 years later, I think that my colleagues in this House will agree with me that the people of Canada have fulfilled this duty magnificently. While our country is still quite young, we have numerous feats and accomplishments to celebrate in every conceivable sphere of activity.

Over time, our scientists, doctors, researchers, leaders and many other Canadians have distinguished themselves in various ways. They have enabled our country to make its voice heard among the community of nations.

It is with great pride that I rise today in this House to speak on a bill to preserve and further celebrate our rich history and unique heritage.

If passed, the Act to establish the Library and Archives of Canada, to amend the Copyright Act and to amend certain Acts in consequence, will give birth to a new agency, the Library and Archives of Canada, from the merging of the National Library and the National Archives of Canada.

Our government is amalgamating these two entities for one reason, and only one: to ensure the new agency will be a centre for information and knowledge management that will provide us, today and in the future, with unprecedented access to our documentary heritage.

In the throne speech of September 2002, our government made a commitment to ensuring that we would have access to our history by creating a new institution that brings together the National Archives of Canada and the National Library of Canada. As this bill demonstrates, our government fulfills its commitments.

With this bill, we want to amalgamate two institutions that are already playing a crucial role in the conservation and dissemination of our heritage and our history. We want to bring together the knowledge, the vision and the creativity of more than 1,000 employees to create a new dynamic and modern entity that will disseminate our stories, our images, our testimonies and our legends.

This new unified agency will be in a better position to manage the millions of documents and to respond to the various requests from experts and Canadians, in both our official languages.

The mandate of the Library and Archives of Canada will be based on the foundations of the current mandates of the two separate entities. Of course, its mandate will also be extended to allow it to work more easily in the interpretation and programming sectors and to make greater use of new technologies.

Over the years, the National Archives and the National Library of Canada have provided us with valuable services and have just about done the impossible to preserve Canada's impressive documentary heritage. Thanks to them, Canadians can now access more than 20 million books, government documents and publications, 340,000 hours of films, videos and sound recordings, 2.3 million maps and more than 20 million photographs.

The Library and Archives of Canada are nothing less than our collective memory and they constitute a real treasure for humankind.

People need to have seen an exhibition such as Reflections of Canada at the Canadian Postal Museum, which features all the stamps issued since the beginnings of our country, to understand the role played by the national archives of a country. The 12,000 stamps in this collection are a unique and original history book that summarizes the most glorious phases of the Canadian epic.

None of this would have been possible without the cooperation of the National Archives and other public institutions such as Canada Post. There are many examples such as these, both for the Archives and for the National Library.

Today, we want to see more of these types of initiatives so that Canadians from all walks of life, as well as people all over the world, can have access to valuable information on our country, Canada, its people, its culture, its society and its values.

As has already been mentioned by the National Archivist of Canada, Ian Wilson, and by the National Librarian, Roch Carrier, there is no doubt that these two institutions have converging roles and similar responsibilities. Their respective administrations already share the same building and perform four similar activities, namely, identifying, selecting and acquiring; describing and promoting; preserving; and making accessible collections.

Until now, it was mainly the type of documents that determined which of the two institutions would have responsibility. The National Library was responsible for the preservation of printed material, such as books and magazines, whereas the National Archives handled prints, microfiches, manuscripts and various other important documents.

In this area as in many others, new technologies have brought down the barriers that delineated responsibilities. Until microchips replaced microfiches, we had no other choice but to go with the flow and modernize our laws and the structure of our organizations to be able to meet the needs of Canadians. We must also make the widest use possible of the enormous potential provided to us by cyberspace to help us access information regarding our heritage. That is what we are proposing with this bill today.

In 2001 and 2002, the number of visitors to the National Archives website exceeded 2.5 million, a 30% increase from the previous year. As for the National Library website, it was accessed by 4.3 million Internet users, which represents a 20% increase.

The demand is there. It is strong and growing. We must meet this demand as best we can to bring our history to Canadians wherever they live in this vast country of ours. After all, the Library and Archives of Canada are not meant to be used exclusively by those who live in the national capital region.

This bill also provides that the new agency will concentrate more on programs which are designed for the public. For example, thanks to its many collections, this new institution will provide material for the Portrait Gallery of Canada which will open in the next few years.

The proposed legislation also provides that the Canadian heritage minister may establish an advisorycouncil to advise the librarian and archivistwith regard to new exposition and interpretation activities and the collection of non-governmental information.

The new agency will continue to develop its collections through the same mechanisms, that is legal deposit, recording, sampling, transfer of government documents, donations, acquisitions and administrative arrangements. But a new mechanism will be added. The new institution will be allowed to take from time to time a representativesample of the documentary material that is accessible to the publicwithout restriction through the Internet.

The Internet has become a true reflection of our society, and we are going to make use of it so that, 10, 50 or 100 years from now, historians will be able to get, thanks to these samplings, an accurate picture of the concerns, issues and culture in Canada at a given moment in history.

Obviously, to make this possible, we have to amend the Copyright Act to allow the agency to take from time to time representative samples of our documentary heritage for preservation purposes.

We have worked hard on this file with all parties concerned, so as to define a specific exemption to copyright for librarians and the National Archivist.

I wish to reassure the members of this House that we have not overlooked any details. We have taken our inspiration from the legislation of a number of countries. We also propose other changes in the Copyright Act in order to strike a fair balance between the needs of those holding copyright on unpublished works and the needs of the Library and Archives of Canada.

Since we made the last series of amendments to the Copyright Act in 1997, some Canadian authors' heirs have expressed their concern about the new criteria covering copyright duration for unpublished works.

After consultations with the Canadian Historical Association, the Bureau of Canadian Archivists, the National Archives of Canada, and The Writers' Union of Canada, we have reached a consensus by which there will be transitional periods depending on when authors died.

We also want the Library and Archives of Canada to become a centre of expertise within the Government of Canada for the management of government documents. At present, the National Archivist plays an important role in this field, advising government institutions concerning standards and procedures for the management of records.

The bill provides that the head of the new agency will retain this responsibility. But the government wants to go farther in order to ensure that all valuable historical documents are preserved for future generations. The Librarian and Archivist of Canada will thus have the power to require the transfer of any documents considered to be at risk.

In the private sector, the word “merge” often implies budget cuts, major organizational restructuring, and staff cuts. But in this operation, such is not the case. The budget and staff of these two institutions will remain unchanged. However, we should remember that certain valuable collections have been threatened by the decrepitude of the buildings housing them.

In the last budget we allocated $15 million to respond to certain specific, short-term needs and to conduct studies to give us a better overall view of our long-term needs and priorities. The new entity we want to create should also make it possible to have a clearer vision of the way forward.

Of course, we as parliamentarians have great respect for libraries and archives. The Library of Parliament, now undergoing renovations of extreme urgency, is a resource of inestimable value. It provides a wide range of services without which our work would be much more difficult.

The National Library of Canada provides the same type of services, but to a much broader clientele. After all, this library serves all Canadians from coast to coast.

As a parliamentarian, I have been on many committees, and I have put together many personal files. So it is easy for me to understand that the archives represent a wealth of information. They are a veritable gold mine for students and academics hoping to understand the debate on, for example, the Canadian flag or the second world war. And they are a rich source of institutional memory for those developing policy or seeking information on the Spicer commission or the Pépin-Robarts commission.

Given the value and the potential of the collections, I am sure that the House will agree when I say that it is important for a large number of Canadians to have access to them. Our institutions must keep up with the times and reflect the introduction of new technologies.

That is why I am pleased to take part in this debate. It is clear, when I consider this legislation, that it will ensure we can rely on a new, improved, modern cultural institution better able to protect and promote the documentary heritage of this country.

By merging the National Library of Canada and the National Archives of Canada to create the Library and Archives of Canada, this government is recognizing a situation that has evolved over the past few years. However, we are doing much more than that. We are also creating a new agency with modern tools to meet our informational needs in the 21st century.

Everyone familiar with these two institutions knows that they have been collaborating closely for many years. Already, these two entities share various administrative services such as finance, human resources, some facilities, security and information and preservation services.

Merging libraries and archives is popular in universities. Increasingly, university courses relate to both disciplines. Therefore, it is not surprising that the National Library and the National Archives of Canada initiated this merger.

In addition to the close collaboration between the National Library and the National Archives, there are other reasons to believe that the merger of these two venerable organization into one new and modern institution will be a good thing.

There is a constantly increasing requirement for Canadians to have simpler access to knowledge and information, particularly in the areas of heritage and culture. The explanation for this is the constant evolution of information technologies, which has whetted their appetite for rapid access to information in all of its forms. The new technologies also have a huge potential for storage, organization and consultation of documents.

We now have the capacity to digitalize books, newspapers, photographs, pictures, sound recordings and films. What is more, we can also create a single access point for all this material. The magic of the Internet can also facilitate the sharing of all these records with people here and elsewhere.

Technological progress has also redefined the conservation field. Better climate control, a better understanding of the composition of materials, more sensitive sensors and other new developments help us to preserve the most precious artifacts of our heritage for future generations.

This will put life back into our documentary heritage and will provide us Canadians with enhanced access to a vast quantity of information about ourselves and our country.

For this and a number of other reasons, I am proud to add my voice to those who support Bill C-36. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the House to follow my example, so that we may meet the needs of Canadians wishing to learn more about their country.

I might add that Bill C-36 includes some other amendments to the Copyright Act, which are absolutely vital to the proper operation of the new agency.

As you know, copyright is a controversial issue and has been for some time. In the 19th century, Charles Dickens was annoyed because the Americans were getting around the British copyright legislation by copying his works and trying to make money off them. Today, the situation is somewhat reversed.

One of the key issues in today's debate on copyright is the need for governments to strike a balance between the needs of artists and the needs of consumers. In other words, how can they provide artists with protection so they are the only ones to profit from their efforts, while at the same time providing users with reasonable access to their works?

This challenge is even greater when it comes to artists who have died or whose works will never be or never were published. Unfortunately, this is exactly the type of situation that can arise for libraries or archives. Imagine if a collection of documents was donated by a Canadian, and a researcher discovered a short text that was never published in a collection of short stories or in a book. Does this discovery belong to the author's estate or to his or her descendants? That is the type of confusion this legislation seeks to avoid.

In 1997, during the last review of the Copyright Act, the Government of Canada ended the permanent protection of unpublished works by submitting them to the same general rules that govern copyright protection in Canada.

Now, unpublished works are protected for 50 years after the death of the author. A five-year transition period was established in 1997, for heirs of authors, to prevent the works from entering the public domain immediately. These amendments came into force December 31, 1998 and the unpublished works of authors who died 50 years prior to that date, 1948 in other words, will enter the public domain on January 1, 2004.

However, while certain authors' heirs have expressed concern regarding copyright protection, there are a number of people, including historians, archivists, genealogists and other stakeholders who have been calling for unpublished works to enter the public domain. The concerned parties undertook negotiations and arrived at a reasonable compromise. They then presented it to the government so that it could consider implementing it in this bill.

Accordingly, the legislation being debated here will make the following changes. First, unpublished works from authors deceased before January 1, 1930 will remain copyright protected until December 31 of this year.

Unpublished works of authors who died after December 31, 1929 and before January 1, 1949 will be copyright protected until December 31, 2017.

In both cases, all unpublished works that are published before the protection expires will be granted an additional 20 years of copyright protection from their date of publishing.

The changes I have just described extend copyright protection for unpublished works. However, we are also make an amendment to help historians, archivists, genealogists and other stakeholders.

Bill C-36 will also amend section 30.21 of the Copyright Act to remove certain conditions that the archives must abide by to make a single copy of an unpublished work. This type of copy is used for research or private studies.

Currently, under section 30.21 a copy of an unpublished work deposited before September 1, 1999 may be made only when the archives are unable to locate the owner of the copyright. The bill also provides that a record be kept of all the copies made under this section. As members can imagine, these conditions represent an extra burden for our archives.

The amendments proposed to the Library and Archives of Canada Act that we are debating today would eliminate these two conditions. I am very pleased to point out that this change has been supported by all the stakeholders who took part in the negotiations on this issue.

This is further evidence that the Library and Archives of Canada will have the mandate, the powers and the tools required to reach its objectives.

Our documentary heritage belongs to us all and it must be more readily accessible. The proposed amendments and the other changes mentioned by my colleagues will create an institution which will be highly appreciated and which will make us proud.

This is what is being proposed in this legislation. By recognizing the complementarity of the mandates and collections of the National Library and the National Archives of Canada and by building on that fact to create a new and more effective institution, the government is providing the citizens of this magnificent country with a new cultural institution which will reflect, stimulate, interpret and celebrate our national identity; an institution that will help Canada become a real knowledge-based society.

The proposal being debated today will herald a new era for Canada. With 130 years of experience in the collection, preservation and diffusion of the Canadian documentary heritage, the Library and Archives of Canada is the institution we need in the coming century.

We cannot change the course of history. However, we will be in a better position to face the challenges of the future if we know our past.

Thanks to the bill before the House today, the Library and Archives of Canada will be prepared to take up the challenges of the 21st century and will be able to preserve the many records of our collective history.

Therefore, I urge all members to support this bill, which will equip our country with the necessary tools to bring together in wonderful collections our books, prints and drawings, musical recordings, films, maps and digital documents of yesterday, today and tomorrow and make them more accessible to Canadians.

We Canadians will thus be in a position to carry out our duty as set out by D'Arcy McGee a century ago: to originate a rich history, in the knowledge that it will be preserved, celebrated and accessible to all.

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, for the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

moved that Bill C-36, An Act to establish the Library and Archives of Canada, to amend the Copyright Act and to amend certain Acts in consequence, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Public Safety Act, 2002

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise to participate in the debate on Bill C-17, recognizing, as my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre pointed out, that this is the government's third attempt to push legislation through the House that would pose a profound threat to some of the most basic civil liberties and the privacy of Canadians.

We know that the previous legislation introduced in November 2001 was Bill C-42. That bill was met with a huge amount of opposition, including from New Democrats. The government tried again in the spring of 2002 with Bill C-55.

Each time the government has introduced and reintroduced the legislation, it has taken a little off the edges perhaps, reduced the scope of the legislation and changed the time limit a bit, but it has not recognized the concerns of Canadians that the bill is an assault on some of the most basic and fundamental rights and freedoms and that privacy rights are at the heart of that concern.

I want to pay tribute to my colleague from Churchill, the federal New Democrat transport critic, who has done such an effective job, both in the committee and across the country, in helping to make Canadians more aware of what the dangers are of this bill.

It is not just this legislation. I think we have to look at this legislation in the context of a broader package of bills that the government has brought forward in the aftermath of September 11. Prime among those bills was Bill C-36, the so-called anti-terrorism legislation, which was far in excess of what was needed to respond to the genuine concerns in terms of fighting against terrorism.

Clearly that was a profoundly and fundamentally flawed bill that introduced unprecedented new powers. This bill, Bill C-17, is in much the same light.

The committee that studied Bill C-17 heard extensive evidence from a range of witnesses from across Canada. My colleagues who spoke earlier in the debate highlighted some of the points that were made. I would note for example the very compelling and eloquent evidence of the representatives of the Coalition of Muslim Organizations of Canada who pointed out that they were already concerned that members of their community were being targeted by law enforcement officers and others, and by border control officers both in Canada and in the United States, in the aftermath of September 11.

Certainly I, as a member of Parliament for Burnaby—Douglas, have heard from a number of constituents who were born in the Middle East, perhaps in Syria, in Iraq, in Iran or in other countries, who travelled to Canada, perhaps in some cases as young people, as children, and yet who have been treated in the most degrading and humiliating manner, being subjected to fingerprinting, photographing, treated basically as criminals. These people's only offence was that they happened to have been born in one of those countries.

That kind of racial profiling is totally unacceptable and yet Bill C-17 would open up the possibility for that to be expanded on a wide scale. That has been pointed out, as I said, by the Coalition of Muslim Organizations, both in its evidence to the committee and in the brief it submitted to the committee. Its brief particularly noted that the act would give sweeping discretion and authority to the Minister of Transport and to the heads of CSIS and the RCMP for significant abuses of power.

One of the greatest dangers of the bill is that there is a total lack of any effective parliamentary oversight. If we as parliamentarians were to vote for the legislation, we would be giving carte blanche to the Minister of Transport and to the heads of CSIS and the RCMP to exercise these very sweeping new powers.

The people from the Arab Canadian community, the Muslim community in particular who already have been targeted post-September 11, have rightly raised grave concerns about the impact this sweeping discretion in the bill would have. It would allow law enforcement agencies to basically go on fishing expeditions and violate the privacy of Canadians.

Parliament has agreed to the appointment of a privacy commissioner whose responsibility will be to report back to Parliament when there are attacks on the privacy rights of Canadians.

Privacy Commissioner George Radwanski appeared before the Standing Committee on Transport just a couple of months ago and said that the bill was a very dangerous piece of legislation. He put it in the context of other legislation and other powers that had already been passed. He noted for example the database of Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, what he called its big brother passenger database.

George Radwanski talked about the bill now before the House. He said:

Bill C-17, the Public Safety Act, will introduce a requirement that we, in effect, identify ourselves to the police when we travel. What I'm referring to here is the fact that when you board a flight these days, even a domestic flight, you have to show photo ID to the airline to confirm your identity.

The bill would make all passenger information available to CSIS and the RCMP, and it is not just about fighting terrorism. The legislation explicitly makes it clear that it goes far beyond that. It permits the RCMP to basically scan passenger information to seek a whole range of information that has nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.

What this amounts to in effect, as Radwanski points out, is self-identification to the police by law-abiding Canadian citizens. As he asked, why not when we took train, a bus, rent a car or checked into a hotel? Once this dangerous principle is accepted, the police in effect are being given powers that I believe are both unconstitutional and violate squarely the provisions of the Charter of Rights.

One of the most respected constitutional lawyers in Canada, Clayton Ruby, appeared before the committee studying Bill C-17 and made that very point. He made the point that the bill was totally lacking in any meaningful safeguards. He said:

So you've taken a narrow kernel of constitutionality...and it may or may not be wise...Wisdom is not my concern here, but constitutionality is. The idea that you can take that information and pass it on, without time limits, without restraints, for general law enforcement purposes...

That is not terrorism but general law enforcement purposes. He went on to say:

--is simply unheard of in this country. We have never done it. Perhaps more importantly, free countries just generally do not do it. Democracies generally do not do this.

Yet, the Liberal government, first in Bill C-42, then in Bill C-55 and now in Bill C-17 is insisting that it take on those sweeping and dangerous new powers.

My colleague for Winnipeg North Centre made reference to Ken Rubin and his evidence before the committee. Certainly Ken Rubin is one of the most knowledgeable when it comes to issues of protection of privacy and respect for the fundamental human rights and civil liberties of Canadians.

Another group that has been outspoken and has taken a leadership role on the issue is a group from my own province, the province of British Columbia, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, one of the most active civil liberties groups in Canada.

The B.C. Civil Liberties Association as well appeared before the standing committee on Bill C-17. The association said that it was a draconian bill which was an attack on a free and democratic society. It pointed out that the bill went far beyond what was actually required to deal with the actual threat of terrorism. It said that much of what needed to be done did not need new legislation at all. In fact under the existing Emergencies Act, there are ample powers to respond to the kinds of concerns that have been raised.

There is always this tension between, on the one hand, the fundamental rights of Canadians as set out in the Charter of Rights and in a body of law and, on the other hand, this desire in the name of fighting terrorism to give sweeping new powers to the police. We as New Democrats argue that the government has failed terribly to achieve the correct balance.

I also want to note another provision of Bill C-17 and that is with respect to exclusion zones. There would be an order in council that would apply to an unknown area. We do not know exactly what that area would be, around Halifax, Esquimalt and Nanoose Bay. It could be used in other parts of the country as well, and we still do not know exactly what powers will be given with respect to these controlled access military zones of Bill C-55.

When it comes to Nanoose Bay, a growing number of British Columbians are saying that they do not want American nuclear powered submarines or American submarines that possibly carry nuclear weapons, in their waters. Yet the bill gives new powers to the government to provide for exclusion zones in these areas as well.

This legislation, Bill C-17, should be scrapped. The government should go back to the drawing board and recognize that we protect and value civil liberties in this country. We do not attack civil liberties and privacy as Bill C-17 does.

Business of the House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we had the curious scene of having the weekly business statement made in the lead off question and the lead off question made during business statements this week. Nonetheless, we all have very much confidence in the opposition House leader.

This afternoon we will continue with the opposition motion.

Tomorrow we will resume debate on the third reading of Bill C-13 respecting reproductive technologies. This will be followed by the report stage of Bill C-17, the public safety bill, as I indicated earlier, around 2:15 p.m.

On Monday we will commence report stage of Bill C-28. When this is completed we will return to the business not completed this week, adding Bill C-36, the archives and library bill introduced earlier this day.

On Tuesday evening the House will go into committee of the whole pursuant to Standing Order 81 in order to consider the estimates of the Minister of Health.

Next Thursday shall be an allotted day.

In terms of when we propose to consider the report stage and third reading of Bill C-24, the election financing bill, I understand the committee is doing tremendous progress, thanks in large measure to Liberal MPs on the committee, and we hope to deal with that shortly after the House resumes.

Library and Archives of Canada Act

[Don Boudria, Liberal, for the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-36, An Act to establish the Library and Archives of Canada, to amend the Copyright Act and to amend certain Acts in consequence

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Criminal Code

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-32 appears to have broad support in the House. I appreciated the remarks from the members opposite. It is encouraging to see that when good legislation comes before the House we all come together and support it. I am very glad to have an opportunity to speak to the bill for the good reason that it is an excellent example of how Parliament does work very well.

Exactly a year ago a delegation of the Hamilton Professional Firefighters Association came to my office. It was a year plus one week; I think it was April 23, 2002. They came to make a representation on behalf of all firemen that the Criminal Code should be amended whereby people who set dangerous or deadly traps in order to harm firefighters responding to alarms would be subject to the maximum penalty that the law allows, life imprisonment, if that trap actually killed a firefighter.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read the proposed amendment that the professional firefighters brought before me in my office a year ago. They hoped to amend section 433.1 of the Criminal Code. That amendment would have read:

Every person who intentionally or recklessly causes damage by fire or explosion to property, whether or not that person owns that property, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life where the fire or explosion causes death or bodily harm to a firefighter who is acting in response to the fire or explosion.

The object of that amendment was to complement another amendment that they also proposed to the Criminal Code which read that every one who commits an aggravated assault, who wounds, mains, disfigures or endangers the life of a firefighter acting in the course of his duties would be subject to these offences under the Criminal Code.

What that basically refers to, Mr. Speaker, is the idea of setting a trap for firefighters responding to an alarm which might emanate from a premise that is engaged in some sort of illegal activity, presumably drugs or something similar. We have heard from earlier speakers that actual incidents occurred where sites where illicit drugs were being manufactured were deliberately booby trapped so that firefighters who responded to an alarm would be harmed or even killed.

What delights me as a member of Parliament is the fact that this was an initiative to change a law that came from the people, in this case the people were the association of firefighters, responding to a similar situation that was occurring in the United States.

I am happy to stand in the House and draw to the attention of the public that the government did indeed act. Again, as members have commented, what the government has done by Bill C-32 is it has amended section 247 of the Criminal Code and specifically defines the crime of setting a trap for the purpose to injure a firefighter.

What happens here, Mr. Speaker, is that if a person sets the trap, just the very fact that he has set a trap or knows that a trap has been set means that is an offence right at the outset and is liable to a term not exceeding five years. It further goes on that if this is done in a place where there is illegal activity, the term of imprisonment is 10 years. Better than all of that, and which reflects what the firefighters were after, is that everyone who commits an offence under section 1, that is setting a trap, and I am now reading from Bill C-32 “and thereby causes the death of any other person, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life”.

Mr. Speaker, I submit to you that is a very good legislative initiative. It is important to remind Canadians that this is Parliament--I will not just say government--this is Parliament acting as a result of representations by Canadians going not just to government MPs, but to Canadian Alliance MPs, to Bloc MPs and to Conservative and NDP MPs.

I well remember when I first came to Parliament nearly 10 years ago that it was quite uncommon for citizen groups to make representations to MPs in their offices, to lobby the MPs. The normal practice was to lobby government officials. In the 1980s under a previous government here in Ottawa, lobbying flourished and that lobbying was primarily directed toward bureaucrats.

I think if one change that has occurred here that has been a very positive change in the last 10 years it is the fact that more and more Canadians are recognizing that the appropriate people to lobby for changes in law, to lobby first, to get onside, is not even the government, is not even the ministers, it is come to the MPs first.

This was a classic example. The association of professional firefighters divided the job across the country. My group came from close to my riding and they were people who were already known to me and made these representations. And there we have it, exactly one year later the law has changed, and the law has changed in a way that I think actually improves the original proposal of the firefighters. I wanted very much to make that comment.

I wanted to comment also on another change that I do not think has been mentioned so far in this debate. That is the change to the Canada Evidence Act. In this change there are three paragraphs in the Canada Evidence Act that refer to information received from a foreign entity that pertains to the Security of Information Act, and then it goes on to make the connection to national defence or--and this is the change--it inserts the words “national security” where only the word “security” existed. Then it goes on to discuss the whole process of getting a certificate pertaining to this secret information.

The reason I wanted to mention that is that is a change that reflects an error or an oversight that was in our anti-terrorism legislation that was brought forward and passed in the House I believe about a year ago. That was Bill C-36. It was Canada's response to September 11, in which various very necessary changes were made pertaining to the protection of secrets, pertaining to the collection of information. This touched on the whole business of terrorist financing and so on and so forth.

When Bill C-36 was introduced, it caused, I thought, a lot of very healthy debate in the House because similar legislation to Bill C-36 was coming forward in Britain and the United States, the homeland security bill specifically in the United States. This was all to strengthen the ability of the police and the security services to deal with the terrorist threat.

The problem was that in bringing in laws that increase security, that increase police powers, there is always the danger that they will interfere unnecessarily with civil liberties. We had extremely active debate in the House on all sides in which MPs tried to balance the needs for increased police powers with not intruding any more than was necessary on civil liberties. I would like to say actually that I believe that Canada's legislation in Bill C-36 struck this balance better than occurred in the United Kingdom or the United States where I think that there were serious erosions of civil liberties in their parallel legislation.

The reason I am telling this story is that when Bill C-36 was in first reading and was dealing with changes to the official secrets act, which was changed to the Security of Information Act, there was a clause in which it defined potentially injurious information.

This particular definition is an important definition that affected all other aspects of the bill, or almost all other aspects. In defining potentially injurious information, the original Bill C-36 said:

“Potentially injurious information” means information of a type that, if it were disclosed to the public, could injure international relations national defence or security.

What was wrong with that clause and why it was so necessary to change it was that the definition of potentially injurious information which affected all kinds of information that was to be collected and distributed by the police services, simply said “national defence or security”. By not having the adjective “national” security and simply using the word “security”, it opened the door in this legislation to expanding police powers that would touch all manner of policing events or all manner of criminal or even quasi-criminal or non-criminal investigations. Security was far too broad a word and it was a dangerous word.

This is another example, I want Canadians to know, of this place working I think extremely well. Some of us behind the curtains actually, approached the minister of the day and pointed out the danger of this clause referring only to security and not to national security. I am happy to say that subsequently when the bill came to report stage, the government amended that particular clause and put in the words “national security”.

I cannot emphasize how enormously important that apparently small change was because it limited the expansion of powers to terrorist acts, to acts that affected the entire country, not to acts that may affect narrow police interests or narrow security interests. I thought that was a very fine reaction to the government and Parliament working at its best.

The reason why I am referring to this in Bill C-32 is I do not think people would otherwise have noticed that the government is continuing to make sure that the police powers do not go too far and that there are proper limitations on police powers, because in making that change to Bill C-36 the government would have appeared to have overlooked the fact that the Canada Evidence Act has a similar problem where the word “security” was used without the adjective “national”.

Therefore, one of the changes in this legislation is to make these changes to the Security of Information Act. This is our official secrets act. It is a very important act because we cannot have the government keeping secrets for any security reason. We cannot give the government huge powers to clamp the lid on things for any security reasons, as they have done in other jurisdictions. We are not a police state. We are a democracy and it is very important to define that it is national security, not all security. There we have it. That is the change that is in Bill C-36. Quite frankly, it is an excellent bill in other aspects, but that change alone I think is simply excellent.

If I have a little more time, I would also like to comment on another aspect of this change that I think may be otherwise overlooked in the bill. My involvement in this particular debate is that I am very interested in issues of secrecy and police powers. I think it is important to note that this bill also corrects another problem that existed in Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism legislation, in making a change to the Security of Information Act, again the original official secrets act. This change is a classic example. The drafters have to be very careful in legislation because just a simple past tense or present tense error can lead to a serious problem.

I draw everyone's attention in Bill C-32 to a change in section 21 which changes a single paragraph of the Security of Information Act. It basically says that there should be security of information on the identity of persons or bodies that have been approached to be confidential sources of information to the intelligence services of Canada. In other words, spies and human resource personnel for the gathering of intelligence.

In the original Bill C-36, they forgot to include those that may have acted in this capacity for Canada in the past. What we have here is a change to change the present tense to the past tense so that those who have given sensitive intelligence, police intelligence, or anti-terrorism intelligence to Canada in the past could continue to enjoy the protection of the Security of Information Act.

Budget Implementation Act, 2003

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the budget bill. Before I turn to some of the specifics in the portfolio of the Solicitor General I would like to make a few points in general on the budget itself.

I feel that the 2003 budget, being a balanced budget, is a people's budget. It is a true Liberal budget which deals with the areas of concern to Canadians. Be it health care, families and communities, policing and law enforcement for which I have responsibility, sustainable development, research and development, it is truly a Liberal budget. On top of that we are maintaining the kinds of tax cuts that were put in place in previous budgets which were a historic high in terms of tax cuts in this country, something even the other side asked for but is always demanding more no doubt.

I want to put the budget in perspective. I understand that the opposition parties have a job to do and have to be critical. They are a little over critical sometimes. I understand that sometimes they do not really mean it; they are just trying to play the part.

However, I want to put things in perspective. I will turn to a couple of media reports. Obviously, the business press is not always friends of the Government of Canada, that is for sure, but I will turn to the March 8 report on business in the Globe and Mail . The headline on the business page reads “Canada's job boom rolls on” and goes on to say “Flabbergasting employment gain comes in at more than four times the forecasts”.

The article by Janet McFarland states: “Canada's economy continued to far outstrip all economists' expectations in February, creating 55,200 new jobs across virtually all sectors”, and it goes on from there.

Robert Spector, who is a senior economist at Merrill Lynch Canada Inc., had this to say:

Canada is the only economy creating jobs in a meaningful way. It's got the only central bank raising interest rates, [and] it's the only G-7 country running a budgetary surplus.

That is pretty good news. Sometimes if we were to listen to opposition comments we would think nothing positive was happening.

However, let me turn to another newspaper, the National Post , which is certainly not a friend of the Government of Canada most times when we read its articles. Let us turn to the Financial Post page. The headline states on the same day, Saturday, March 8, “Economies out of step”. It states that the United States fears a double-dip recession and it talks about the difficulty the Americans are having. We certainly do not want them to have difficulty in their economy, but on the other side it states that Canada is on a roll, and that “job miracle stuns market, pushes dollar to three year high”. It goes on with something similar to what the Globe and Mail said, which was that this is the only country in the G-8 with a surplus.

That is pretty good news and we need to keep that in perspective. Our economy is doing well because of how the Liberal Party of Canada governed the country over the last 10 years. Let us not take that away from the Government of Canada today.

How did we get to this position? You know well, Mr. Speaker, because you were amongst us in the 1993-95 period when we had to make the hard decisions.

The government and this party made those decisions so that we could be in this position today where we have choices, the choices I talked about in having a real, true Liberal budget that deals with the concerns of Canadians in their homes, communities, social programs, economic development, and research and development. That is the kind of progress we want to see. We should be congratulating all the backbenchers, cabinet ministers, and the whole party right to the grassroots in terms of the kinds of decisions and progress that we have made to get to where we are today.

Let me turn for a moment to the Solicitor General's portfolio. Specifically, I want to deal with the issue of public safety and national security because there are individuals out there who do not believe we are doing enough. I believe that this country has a lot to be proud of in terms of its national security and public safety position. We have done a tremendous amount in the last three years.

I want to speak about the public safety and anti-terrorism funding provided in budget 2001 because those moneys are still rolling out and we are still building on those initiatives. In terms of what is coming out of that PSAT funding, $7.7 billion over five years, we funded the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police workshops for communications and training so that police and law enforcement officials could do a better job on the ground in terms of policing.

Mr. Speaker, I neglected to inform the House that I will be splitting my time with the member for Kitchener Centre.

We have provided funding to the provinces on public key infrastructure for secure communications. We have implemented new legislation. Training is already being provided to police and prosecutors through Bill C-36, the Anti-Terrorism Act, and I have listed a number of entities under that act who we do not want operating or being supported by any individual in this country. We have also implemented Bill C-24 dealing with organized crime.

On policing and intelligence we have set up integrated border enforcement teams. I have had the opportunity to visit a few of those. In that area we are working together with our counterparts in the United States and doing a better job in terms of policing at our border where the RCMP, local jurisdiction police forces, CSIS, customs, and on the United States side the American coast guard and their local law enforcement agencies, sometimes the FBI or the CIA, are working together to provide better security for Canadians at our border. We are doing an excellent job there.

We have set up integrated national security enforcement teams. At the Canada-U.S. border security side, we have set up new technology at border crossings. We have put in place better equipment for detecting explosives. We have made infrastructure improvements in terms of highway and commercial vehicle processing centres. On critical infrastructure protection and emergency preparedness, we have improved our laboratories. We have put in place heavy urban search and rescue equipment and we are working, with training and equipment, on improving our ability to handle chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear problems.

In this budget specifically, building on our public safety and security aspects, we have put in place an additional $50 million this fiscal year and $25 million next year for security contingency reserves. We have put in place $46.6 million over the next two years to continue the integrated proceeds of crime initiative. We expanded our first nations policing program by an additional $42 million and put $30 million a year toward a coordinated national enforcement approach to strengthen the investigation and prosecution of the most serious corporate frauds in market illegalities.

I also want to emphasize that we are continuing to adequately fund and improve the funding for the RCMP, CSIS, Correctional Service Canada and for the parole board.

We can all be proud of the job that the government is doing, in terms of public safety and national security for Canadians, so we remain at our place on top of the world.

Privilege

[John Williams, Canadian Alliance, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege to charge the Minister of Justice with contempt in regard to his release of material to the media that was intended for Parliament.

Yesterday, the President of the Treasury Board tabled the main estimates in the House. The estimates reported that the government was seeking more funds to keep the firearms registry running.

Despite the urging of the Auditor General, the government has failed to provide a proper accounting of the program, a program that the Auditor General considers a major crown project. Apart from an $18 million item under Department of Justice, contributions to provinces and territories, there is no mention of any other funding for the firearms registry in the estimates.

However some cost estimates and details not mentioned in the estimates were revealed yesterday in a government news release. The release reads:

Firearms Program Funding 2003-04 (Main Estimates)

Treasury Board material on the Main Estimates mentions $74 million for the Canadian Firearms Centre. What is this for?

It goes on to say that:

The $74 million is part of the $113 million sought in the Main Estimates for the Canadian Firearms Program. These funds are needed to operate and administer the firearms program for fiscal year 2003-04.

The $113 million figure is arrived at by adding the $74 million to the A-base estimate for the program ($35 million, which was included within the Department's Main Estimates figures for the 2003-04, tabled last year). The $113M includes employee benefits and accommodation costs.

I am not sure what the A-base is. The news release goes on to detail how it was spent.

The $113M consists of the following major elements: $21.5M to the “Alternative Service Delivery”; $8M to operate the Miramichi facility (costs for the Quebec processing site are included in provincial contributions); $16M in contributions to provinces that are administering the program (eg. Quebec, Ontario, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, etc.); $11.3M to administer the program in opt-out jurisdictions; $4.6M for NWEST; $16M in other contributions to federal partners involved in the program; $14.4M for maintenance of the current Electronic Data Processing system and current business operations; and $9.2M for program administration.

The NWEST may be the Northwest Territories but I am not sure. The news release then goes on to provide details of the $74 million. The latter half of the release concerns itself with program funding of $59 million for 2002-03 supplementary estimates.

Mike Murphy, a spokesman for the Minister of Justice, reported to the National Post that the more detailed breakdown contained in the news release would be tabled in Parliament in late March. Mr. Murphy is admitting that the information in the news release is intended for Parliament and that Parliament will be provided with the information later.

Later in March would mean that the detailed information in the news release would be provided to Parliament when the reports on plans and priorities, or part IIIs of the main estimates, are tabled in the House as required under our rules. As you are also aware, Mr. Speaker, those reports are intended for the House.

The Minister of Justice has decided to release this information to the media one month ahead of providing it to Parliament. His spokesman has made the link between the information in the news release and information intended for Parliament in an interview with Bill Curry of the

National Post.

I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to a question of privilege that was raised by the member for Provencher on March 14, 2001. His question of privilege was in regard to the Department of Justice briefing the media on Bill C-15 prior to its tabling in the House.

On March 19, 2001 the Speaker ruled on the matter and stated:

In preparing legislation, the government may wish to hold extensive consultations and such consultations may be held entirely at the government's discretion. However, with respect to material to be placed before parliament, the House must take precedence.

We had another case on October 15, 2001. The opposition House leader raised a question of privilege with regard to Bill C-36. The National Post had reported the contents of Bill C-36 and indicated that it was briefed by officials from the Department of Justice. The article published on October 13, 2001 entitled “New bill to pin down terrorism” described the bill in detail and quoted officials from the department.

The Speaker ruled that the case of Bill C-36 was similar to Bill C-15 and that there had been a breach of privileges of the House and the matter was sent to committee.

I would argue that the reports on the plans and priorities are material placed before Parliament and like legislation, if they are to be released, the House must take precedence.

The supply process deserves the same respect, integrity and protection as the legislative process. I would argue even more so than legislation because the estimates are the fundamental reason that Parliament exists.

The minister's attempt to appropriate money through a news release is an affront to Parliament.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, supplementary estimates (B) 2002-03 for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2003. were also tabled by the President of the Treasury Board yesterday. On page 82, the Canadian firearms program will receive another $59,447,000. In addition to that it also has with an asterisk, “Incremental funding to address operational requirements, Vote 1, at $16,436,000”. At the bottom the asterisk states:

Funds in the amount of $14,098,739 were advanced from the Treasury Board Contingencies Vote to provide temporary funding for this program.

If I go back to the 2002-03 main estimates, part I and II, the government expenditure plan in main estimates at page 1-54, for the vote 5 of the government contingencies for the Treasury Board it states:

Subject to the approval of the Treasury Board, to supplement other appropriations for paylist and other requirements and to provide for miscellaneous minor and unforeseen expenses not otherwise provided for, including awards under the Public Servants Inventions Act and authority to re-use any sums allotted for non-paylist requirements and repaid to this appropriation from other appropriations.

Note the word “unforeseen”.

We do know that the Minister of Justice has been telling us that he has been funding the firearms program through cash management after the government withdrew a request for $72 million last December.

I am raising this point with you, Mr. Speaker, at the earliest opportunity because supplementary estimates (B) were only tabled in the House yesterday. I have not been able to verify whether that $15 million was for the Canadian firearms program as the $72 million was in December 2002.

If we find that this money actually was used for the firearms program to replace the money that the government did not request in December 2002, it was not unforeseen. It was to replace a request that was withdrawn which is a significant difference. Unforeseen we can understand; to replace a request that the government withdrew from the floor of this House, for reasons we do not know, cannot under any circumstances be classified as unforeseen.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you will find that the Minister of Justice is in contempt of the House for the total disregard for the historic and constitutional role of the House in financial matters and the business of supply. If you agree and if you do so rule, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

Terrorism

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, we do things differently in this country. In fact, we do it more carefully and more securely in my point of view.

We have a process with restrictions that were placed on it by the House. There are severe restrictions when we name entities on the anti-terrorist list under Bill C-36. We are continuing to work on that list. We named three more entities yesterday. Regardless of whether or not they are on the list, our security intelligence services, our law enforcement services--

Supply

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the member for Vancouver East has put the argument against a national identity card well and I hope to be able to elaborate a little bit on it, but first I want to reiterate what was said by the member for Vancouver East, that the NDP sees itself today as providing the House with an opportunity to hear people out on this emerging issue. It is an emerging issue in part because the minister has made it one by going around and talking about it in committee and elsewhere. Clearly he would like to hear not just from Canadians but, I presume, from other members of Parliament about this, and that is what this debate is about today.

I think we will find or I hope we will find that this is an issue that does not fall neatly into any sort of right or left categories, that there will be people on all parts of the political spectrum who will have concerns. Obviously as the NDP and as a left wing party we have concerns, but I would imagine that people on the right wing of the political spectrum would also have concerns about this to the extent that this increases the power of the state, et cetera. To the extent that Liberals have any principles at all, perhaps they could draw on whatever principles they have to come up with an analysis, but I am just not sure what those principles are.

I see that the minister is in the House and presumably he is going to respond in the debate. I thank him for his presence here today. I look forward to hearing what he has to say on the matter.

One of the things that disturbs me most about this is that I see a pattern developing here. I was the justice critic during the time of the introduction of the anti-terrorism legislation, Bill C-36 . I certainly had the feeling at that time from the then justice minister, now the health minister, when I listened to her in committee, that we were not doing this entirely of our own accord, that we were not doing this entirely for our own reasons.

Many times I would listen to the minister and it would seem to me that what she was saying was code for the fact that “we are doing this”, and in that case they were actually doing something and at this point the minister is only thinking about it, but he is thinking about it, it seems to me, because somebody else wants him to think about it. Here I am thinking of our neighbours to the south.

I know that certain elements of the anti-terrorism legislation were designed in order to please Washington and I wonder whether a similar thing is not happening here. Of course one of the other similarities is that sometimes we actually go further than the Americans themselves would. There were elements of the anti-terrorism legislation, Bill C-36, that went further than the anti-terrorism legislation that we found in the United States.

For instance, I think that the sunset provisions in some of the anti-terrorism legislation in the United States were actually better than the sunset provisions or so-called sunset provisions in Bill C-36. With respect to a national identity card we have a similar thing happening because here we have Canadians considering whether or not to have a national identity card, yet the issue is not really an issue at all in the United States.

In fact, I understand that the United States Congress, at least, is so wary of such an idea that it inserted a line in the bill that created the Department of Homeland Security which reads like this: “Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize the development of a national identification system or card”.

If there is any truth to what I am saying the minister will have an opportunity to stand up and deny it, I suppose, although whether that will change my mind or not is another matter. But if there is any truth to what I am saying, that this is somehow in part responding to what the Americans want us to do, that somehow they do not feel a Canadian passport is good enough anymore at the border so they want Canadians to be able produce a national ID card, it is not the first time that we have gone further than the Americans themselves are willing to go when it comes to this whole response to the new environment created by September 11, 2001.

I think the government is once again set on this course. When listening to the minister it seems it is. Even though we are having a discussion and he wants to hear what people have to say, it seems to me that he is pretty intent on this. Once again we are striking the wrong balance between freedom and security and erring, I think, too much on the side of so-called security.

I say so-called security because it seems to me that there is not a whole lot of evidence that a national ID card will make anybody any safer and will prevent terrorism or be the kind of tool that is absolutely necessary for the detection of terrorists or whatever. Terrorists are terrorists and they know how to produce false ID. It will be ordinary Canadians who will have their lives most significantly changed by this if the government goes ahead with it. This is why we are very much against this idea.

We have the privacy commissioner, who is very concerned about this, and I think that if we appoint these people like Mr. Radwanski to be the privacy commissioner and to think deeply about these issues, we should pay attention to what they person has to say about these things. Clearly he is very concerned about the idea of a national ID card.

He is also concerned, and this is another area where the government is not listening to Mr. Radwanski, about the invasion of privacy that the government is contemplating through the legislation which would enable the government to collect data on where Canadians travel on every plane they take and keep that information for up to six years or something like that, I think. At one point, still, but not for very long if the government has its way, one would like to think that one could catch a plane, travel around the country and not have that information going into a data bank somewhere and being analyzed for a variety of purposes, not all of them necessarily for a good purpose. The existence of that kind of data at all, it seems to me, is unwarranted.

Here we have a pattern emerging, I guess this is what I am trying to say, we have a pattern emerging where, on the basis of what happened on that one day on September 11, 2001, we are transforming our whole way of life. We are transforming our notions of what constitutes appropriate power, power of the state. We are transforming our notions of privacy. We are transforming our notions of freedom. We are transforming our notions of security. I think the government is consistently getting it wrong on this and it is going to get it wrong one more time if it proceeds with the national ID card.

As a final point, one can only imagine how much this will cost. In the short term, if it happens quickly, it will be run by Liberals. When one thinks of what they were able to do in terms of mismanagement when it came to the gun registry, when it comes to this they could bankrupt the country. This could make the gun registry look like a molehill compared to the mountain that the Liberals certainly would be able to create with this. I do not know which company that is a friend of the Liberals this would be contracted out to, but--

Terrorism

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the official opposition, I welcome the opportunity to respond to the Solicitor General's statement regarding the listing of a further three entities pursuant to the Criminal Code.

In late November the Solicitor General stood in the House to announce the addition of six entities to the list initiated on July 23, a list that contained a meagre seven terrorist organizations.

On December 11 the Solicitor General rose again to announce that Hezbollah was finally being added to the list but only after enduring two weeks of relentless pressure from the official opposition and from the foreign affairs critic.

Since July 23, when the Solicitor General first announced the listing of terrorist organizations, the Canadian Alliance as well as many organizations and concerned citizens criticized the government for failing to list Hezbollah as well as Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Tamil Tigers, all known terrorist entities as identified by the United Nations.

We have repeatedly condemned the government for the inordinate amount of time that it took to compile the initial listing at a snail's pace at which names were being added on an ongoing basis.

Bill C-36, the Anti-terrorism Act, received royal assent in December 2001. After more than a year, we now only have 19 entities listed as terrorist organizations while the United Nations has listed over 200. Furthermore, Jemaah Islamiah , responsible for the largest terror attack since 9/11 in Bali, and FARC, the Revolutionary Armed Force of Colombia, are still missing from that list.

I therefore take great exception to the Solicitor General's contention that the government has acted “swiftly and decisively”. This is not the case. The Subcommittee on National Security, a committee convened since 9/11, is a prime example of the government's lack of commitment. To date, that committee of which I am a member has only met five times. Since this past summer we have only had two meetings. Meanwhile the Senate committee on national security and defence has been travelling across the country. It has produced numerous reports. Most recently, it released a report on January 20, a report on security at Canada's airports.

The Senate committee has found that “side door and back door” security is extremely poor and much more needs to be done to tighten up security at Canadian airports. Effectively, the Senate committee is doing the work of the House, perhaps doing much of the work of this department.

I also take exception to the Solicitor General's statement that the government is working together with the United States to protect our common beliefs. An article in the Globe and Mail on January 31 said that the government was seeking a blanket exemption for Canadians from new U.S. rules requiring records to be kept on everyone entering and leaving the United States.

The article said:

The entry-exit issue is shaping up to be the next major irritant in Canada-U.S. relations.

I would suggest to the Solicitor General that rather than seeking exemptions, the government should emulate the United States security measures and immediately initiate an exit-entry control system in this country.

If, as we have said repeatedly, the government is truly committed to fighting the global war on terrorism, the Solicitor General should be doing so much more, such as identifying and listing entities at a much quicker rate for the security of the country. He should be significantly increasing the resources of CSIS. He should be significantly increasing the resources to the RCMP for the security of this nation. The Solicitor General, working with the transport minister, should be tightening airport and port security. Failure to take such action clearly threatens the safety and security of Canadians.

We would encourage the Solicitor General to speed up the process to assure that Canadians are kept adequately safe. That is the responsibility of the Solicitor General.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, given the importance of this issue, it is disappointing to see the shortness of the statement of the Solicitor General on terrorists, terrorism and innocent civilian victims.

The opportunity given to ministers to make statements in the House is usually a solemn occasion marking a major change in government policy. However, the Solicitor General's statement, far from meeting these criteria, shows the government's flippancy when it comes to fulfilling its responsibilities in the fight against terrorism.

This is not serious. In the fall of 2001, Bill C-36 was rammed through Parliament as if terrorism were a new reality. Then, it took the government almost a whole year to realize that the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas are terrorist entities. Yet, for years now, they have been claiming responsibility for suicide attacks. Normally, it should not have taken close to a year to add these organizations to the list.

The addition at this point of these six entities to the very short list of organizations having direct or indirect ties with terrorist activities in Canada or abroad is stunning.

It seems to us that merely mentioning the name Hamas should be enough to trigger thoughts of terrorist activities in the Middle East and all over the world. The same is true of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

It would have been interesting to know why the government suddenly woke up today. This would have given some substance to the minister's statement.

Since the government singled out these organizations and put them on its list of terrorist entities, I am surprised that Hezbollah is not mentioned anywhere. We are fully aware that, as charities go, this entity is nothing like the Knights of Columbus.

Generally speaking, we feel that the government, particularly with Bill C-17, formerly known as Bill C-42 and Bill C-55, has not managed to strike a balance between public safety and individual rights and freedoms. The comments made by the Privacy Commissioner are evidence of that.

In conclusion, the Bloc Quebecois is pleased that these entities were added to the government's list, but it is disappointed to see the Solicitor General using a piecemeal approach on such an important issue. We would to know when the list will be made longer, to paraphrase the Solicitor General, and we would like to know why it is currently not as complete as it should be.

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in response to the Solicitor General's statement regarding the listing of a further six entities pursuant to the Criminal Code.

It is somewhat of an understatement to say that the Solicitor General's claim that the government “moved quickly to implement the anti-terrorist plan” is a misnomer.

Bill C-36 received royal assent on December 18, 2001, yet it took the Solicitor General seven months to bring forward the first group of entities to be listed as illegal terrorist organizations. It took seven months for the government to determine that al-Qaeda was in fact a terrorist organization. It has now taken an additional four months for the government to finally determine and list Hamas as a terrorist organization, a fact that has long been recognized by the United Nations as well as many other countries.

Hamas, the Tamil Tigers and Hezbollah are among the over 200 organizations identified by the United Nations as terrorists. In July when the first seven entities were listed we, as well as many others, publicly criticized the government for failing to list Hezbollah. There have been ample justification and evidence, such as the 1983 truck bombing of a United States marine barracks in Beirut and the 1994 bombing of the Israeli cultural centre in Buenos Aires, proving that not only is Hezbollah a terrorist organization but it is one of the most violent. Hezbollah is known for using terrorist tactics, such as suicide bombings and missile attacks, to promote its agenda of imposing an Iranian style Islamic rule in the Middle East.

It is a well-known fact that Canadian intelligence agencies say that Hezbollah has operatives in every major city in the country and that it has been using Canada as an offshore base for a decade. In its 2000 report on international terrorism CSIS reported that Canada was a primary venue of opportunity to support, plan or mount terrorist attacks.

Just recently Senator Bob Graham of the senate intelligence committee in the United States described the leader of a Canadian cell of Hezbollah as making bin Laden look like a schoolboy. According to the United States, Canada is proving to be a true haven for Hezbollah and not only will the government not ban this known terrorist organization, we will not extradite Hezbollah members to the United States to face justice as it is requesting.

If the government were in fact truly committed to the global war on terrorism, the Solicitor General would ensure that the list is complete and that it does not take such an inordinate amount of time to bring forward those names and entities. Clearly, our intelligence agencies, particularly CSIS, are overwhelmed by the tremendous workload thrust upon them since September 11. By the CSIS director's own admission, more resources are needed if we are to determine and list all terrorist activity.

I implore the Solicitor General to list Hezbollah, to recognize that it is a threat to world peace and to the safety of Canadians.

Parliamentary Reform

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in this debate I would like to offer my observations on judicial nominations, on the issue of take note debates and on the role of a parliamentary secretary and the appearance of ministers at committees.

The first is with respect to judicial nominations and the prerogative of the Prime Minister at this point to make judicial appointments without the supervisory role of Parliament. This comes out of some history where a prime minister did not have to be overly worried about the social views of a potential nominee for a judicial appointment because judges were expected to operate in the realm of what was called black letter law.

Black letter law is a very narrow view of what the common law says on any particular issue. There are limitations on what is or is not admissible as evidence. There are limitations on what can be considered and how one interprets the law. Therefore, the prime minister of the day could sit back, relax and not anticipate that a judicial intervention into an area of social policy would significantly impact the prerogatives of Parliament.

That brings me to the issue of the supremacy of Parliament. Historically the supremacy of Parliament in the area of social policy direction was just that. It was supreme and courts merely interpreted what Parliament must have meant in the circumstances.

However, that was then and this is now. We have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms which has given judges a far greater scope to shape social policy. A judge can put a particular social policy through a charter lens and read an interpretation into a particular piece of legislation. Probably one of the more outstanding examples is that of sexual orientation, where clearly Parliament thought about putting that into the charter and chose not to, but subsequent various judicial interpretations read sexual orientation into various statutes and pieces of common law.

This has resulted, as some say, in what is called a dialogue with Parliament. The charter interpretations are a text that dialogues with this body. Some have interpreted it as more of a monologue and that the judges are having the final say. I am more of the view that there is some give and take, some push and pull between Parliament and the judges. As I say, reasonable people can disagree on the role of the supremacy of Parliament. I think it is fair to say that the supremacy of Parliament has somewhat been eroded by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I raise these background issues in the context of the appointment of judges because when judges were merely black letter law judges we really did not have to worry about what their social views were. Now we do have to be concerned about what their social views are. Their views on particular areas can shape social policy and shape it in directions that possibly Parliament would not necessarily wish to go. That argues for a review of the nomination of judicial appointments by Parliament.

What is the problem with this? I suppose the problem we all look at is the circus that we see in the United States with the congressional reviews of judicial appointments. We see that certain members of congress turn it into, shall we say, a mini-business to ferret out the dirt on various nominations. No stone is left unturned. No embarrassing marijuana conviction or sexual liaison is left to where it should be, namely the private realm of those individuals. Rather it is paraded by the media before the public and it destroys the reputations of very good men and women.

I think there is an intense reaction to this circus that we see to the south of us, these rather graphic examples of turning good men and women away from letting their names stand for judicial appointment. The irony here is that rather than in fact expanding the democratic process, it is actually a turnoff. We see this in voter apathy and in resistance on the part of American electors to engage themselves in congressional elections.

So the issue is this: How can we review a nomination thoughtfully, responsibly and carefully and find out the views of these men and women on important social issues while not turning it into a circus that essentially forces them to withdraw their names from nomination? The short answer to that is, I do not know. Presently we have a system that is very secretive. It is almost like electing a Pope. Possibly we should outfit the Peace Tower to emit black or white smoke on the selection process.

It is not without its politics. I have been practising law for a long time and have some feel for the intensity of politics that goes into the selection of judicial appointments. It is a high art form. It is very intense and I would say very elegant, but it is also very ruthless. Politics is involved in judicial selections, except that the public has no say at all.

The legal community has its own criteria and its own way of doing its self-selecting, but that is based upon its own views of what a competent judge should be. I would argue that by and large the men and women who serve on our benches are very capable people and give very good service to the public. Nevertheless, the public has no say in their views.

So how the people's representatives, those of us in this Chamber, would not turn this process into a circus is the only hesitation I have in this particular issue, but in my view it should be examined. These appointments are of great significance to Canadians.

The second point I want to make is with respect to take note debates. Personally I like take note debates. I like those opportunities. I think they are important debates. What I do not like about them is, first, the short notice that we get. I would like a bit of time to reflect on whatever the debate issue might be. The second issue is that I do not particularly like speaking at 3 o'clock in the morning. It seems that we lay on these take note debates and they go on and on. I do not think that people are at their best at 3 o'clock in the morning. I am certainly not.

The third thing I do not like about take note debates is that there is no formal way in which the government responds to the content of the debate. These debates are usually on very important issues. One example is whether we do or do not go to war. When I first arrived here I assumed, basically on a historical reading, that it was Parliament that decided whether we did or did not go to war. Much to my surprise, Parliament has not decided in a long time, probably since the Korean war, whether we go to war or go to peacekeeping missions. Frankly, I think that the people should have a say. After all, it will be their sons and daughters who are going to be killed or injured in these hostilities. I frankly think the take note debate should be something more than simply a comfort zone for the executive.

On the point about excluding parliamentary secretaries from committees, I do not think that is necessarily a good idea. Properly instructed, a parliamentary secretary can inform a committee of the views of a minister and the views of a department. I appreciate that some parliamentary secretaries are overly partisan and overly zealous, but possibly with some instruction that can be changed.

Finally, on the point about a minister being present for clause by clause, I was there for Bill C-36, probably one of the most important bills that this Parliament has engaged in. While the parliamentary secretary did an able job on 167 amendments, I thought it appropriate that the minister be there to put forward those amendments.

These are my views on those three issues. I appreciate the opportunity to make these comments.

Question No. 21

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-17 adds three new offences to the Criminal Code to address the communication of false information likely to lead others to reasonably believe that terrorist activity is or will be occurring. It also deals with any act that is likely to lead others to reasonably believe that terrorist activity is or will be occurring.

These new offences fill a loophole in criminal law. There is much concern about not only clear threats to public safety, such as incredible acts like sending anthrax spores by mail to unsuspecting addressees, but also numerous hoaxes intended to scare, fearmonger and disrupt daily life by causing, for example, a building to be evacuated.

Under such circumstances, several provisions of the Criminal Code may apply, for instance section 372 on false messages, section 430 on mischief, and even section 264.1 on uttering threats. These are essentially general provisions however. They do not deal specifically with hoaxes regarding terrorist activity.

As for sentencing, to ensure that the sentence reflects the diversity of behaviours targeted and is proportionate to the seriousness of the prejudice to society, the maximum provided for is imprisonment for five years, ten years or life, depending on whether the accused is charged with the basic offence or there are aggravating circumstances such as death or injury to a person.

Bill C-36, the Antiterrorism Act, covers several offences related to real terrorist activities. Take for example, the new sections 83.19 on facilitating a terrorist activity and section 83.22, on instructing to carry out terrorist activity.

At this time there are no provisions that deal specifically with terrorist hoaxes. Establishing offences for this type of activity falls under the commitment made by Canada to adopt comprehensive measures to fight terrorism and completes the provisions of Bill C-36.

After the events of September 11, 2001, provincial officials asked that provisions be added to the Criminal Code to solve the serious problem of terrorist hoaxes.

The federal government listened to this legislative request and followed up with two new offences in Bill C-17, the Public Safety Act, 2002, to address terrorist hoaxes. These offences complete those included in Bill C-36, the Antiterrorism Act, to implement the UN International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings and to provide a penalty for the use of explosive devices or other deadly devices.

The provisions making hoaxes a criminal offence would distinguish between persons committing a hoax by conveying false information regarding explosive or other deadly devices and those who show false explosive or other deadly devices. In both cases, the offences must be committed with the intent of causing persons to fear death or bodily harm.

Hoaxes regarding terrorist activity have a detrimental and paralyzing effect on the freedom and safety of people and society, whether their authors intend to cause people to fear bodily harm or damage to property.

Extending the scope of these offences to include an “intent to cause any person to fear...serious interference with the use or operation of property” would maximize the deterring effect of the new incriminating provisions, while complying with appropriate parameters.

Finally, providing harsher penalties for those whose hoaxes have caused a real injury is in line with the more general criminal justice objective which consists in imposing penalties that are “proportionate” to the behaviours sanctioned by the criminal law. Such an approach has already been adopted in other provisions of the Criminal Code, including those that deal with assault and criminal negligence.

Consequently, the revised provisions on hoaxes are based on the definition of “terrorist activity” in Bill C-36 and they now establish a separate criminal offence for those who provide false information that is likely to cause a reasonable apprehension that terrorist activity is occurring or will occur, and those who commit an act that is likely to cause a reasonable apprehension that terrorist activity is occurring or will occur.

In both cases, the person who commits the offence must also have the criminal intent of causing a person to fear death, bodily harm, substantial damage to property or serious interference with the lawful use or operation of property.

The maximum penalty for this offence is five years of imprisonment. If the hoax does cause bodily harm, the maximum penalty is 10 years of imprisonment and if it causes death, the maximum penalty is imprisonment for life.

For these reasons, we think that Bill C-17 should have the support of all members of the House.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on two things in the bill, the first having to do with the sharing of information, and the second having to do with interim orders. I then wish to comment on whether in fact this is creating an environment of security or one of insecurity.

I just returned from a week abroad and my transfer point was Miami. I was flying in from a foreign country through Miami to Toronto. Frankly, Miami was a horror show. All I had to do was transfer from one airplane to another. It was the same airline in the same constellation of lounges. However, in order to be able to do it I had to disembark from the one airplane, go through U.S. immigration services, customs services, go back through security again, line up in front of the desk going into the gangway of the airplane, and then line up in the gangway of the airplane itself again. It was a nice waste of about two and half hours.

Apparently that is all for security purposes. I was kind of hard pressed to fathom how I would become a security risk by virtue of transferring from one airplane to the next airplane, in the same lounge which is a transit lounge, but apparently I was.

I can see how these so-called security needs lead to great frustration and create air rage on the part of the travelling public. I am hard pressed, however, to see how all of these security measures, as I experienced them in Miami yesterday, relate to security at all. In fact, it gets a little bizarre. Just to add on to the add on, the number of pieces of baggage with the number of passengers could not be co-related, so we sat there for an hour on the tarmac trying to count the baggage all over again.

I find that this kind of environment, particularly in the United States, leads to more paranoia than it does to security. If one ever wants to thank his or her lucky stars to be Canadian, one should travel in the United States now. Everyone there is walking on eggshells and I respectfully suggest that it is a society at war with itself, that in fact it is turning in on itself and contradicts some of the values it prizes the most, namely its freedoms and openness. I feel sympathetic to many of my American colleagues, but I must ask myself whether we in fact, by doing bills such as this, feed into that paranoia.

The paranoia in my opinion is further hyped by those who have a political agenda. For those in the security business these are good times. It serves those folks and they do not seem to be overly fussed about losses to rights of privacy.

Bill C-17 would allow the transference of all of my travel information to all security services around the world, particularly in the United States. They will know with whom I travelled. They will know that I travelled with my wife in this instance. They will know where we went and how I paid for it. They will know how often I travel, where I travel, with whom I travel and how I propose paying for it. That may in itself sound relatively benign except if one is the innocent victim. Make no mistake that this information will never be used for us. It will only be used against us.

I and everyone in the House will have a travel profile which will be gathered here and transmitted electronically around the world. There are no restrictions on how it would be used and who would use it and it could be cross-referenced with other data from various agencies that have information on me.

Our privacy commissioner has likened it to a police state mentality and while I think that is a bit overboard, I want to comment on having actually travelled in a police state, namely Estonia, when I was younger.

I recall vividly going to church on a Sunday morning, sitting in a service and while the minister was preaching, four soldiers from the Soviet army marched into the church, walked to the front and just starred at everybody in an attempt to intimidate those who were still going to church in that country.

The point is not that Canada would become a police state but that it would create an environment of fear. It would be sharing information with countries, some of whom clearly are much closer to police states. It would feed a climate of fear and fear builds on itself. To put an ironic twist on, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, a former president of the United States said “You have nothing to fear but fear itself”. It is indeed ironic because all these bills create this environment of fear.

We are proposing this bill even though the results are not in on Bill C-36. One of the provisions of Bill C-36 is that there must be an annual report presented to Parliament on how it was used and possibly abused. We do not know whether the changes in the Criminal Code were actually helpful or a hindrance. We passed Bill C-36 in great haste but we have yet to see a report on its effectiveness.

Files tend to have a life of their own, especially where security forces have already reached a conclusion and like to secure evidence that advances that conclusion.

Bill C-17 would reduce the time a minister would require to make an interim order where immediate action is required to deal with a significant risk to health, safety or the environment.

I suppose the first question is: What is a significant risk?

This would allow the minister to act rapidly to address an emergency situation. Should a threat be identified, the Minister of Health, for example, could impose more stringent controls on the storage and distribution of potentially dangerous biological and chemical products to prevent them from being diverted for terrorist purposes.

What is envisioned here are situations which may not justify a declaration of national emergency but still require immediate action. The scope of the powers that could be exercised under Bill C-17 are more limited than we would get under the Emergencies Act but nevertheless are quite extensive in and of themselves.

I must congratulate the minister who has listened to some of the complaints that would limit some of the timeframes and some of the review processes. I guess the best that could be said here is that it is not as bad as Bill C-55.

However, the cabinet could still extend an interim order for a year. Parliament is not bypassed since an interim order must be tabled with Parliament, which is an unusual procedure and again I congratulate the minister for taking up that concern and tabling the interim orders before Parliament so they can in fact be reviewed within 15 days. This may or may not address the concern expressed by the previous speaker about ministerial excesses but that would largely be up to the vigilance of Parliament.

The interim order would still have to be gazetted within 23 days after it is made, thus ensuring some level of transparency. It is also subject to judicial review, as are other government decisions.

We still have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms which we continue to fully apply.

One would hope that as we add up all these checks to these potentially significant intrusions into the security and privacy and freedoms of our citizens we can have some measure of sense that these checks and balances would serve as useful legal instruments to protect Canadians in an emergency situation.

I do not know whether we will end up looking like the United States in the not too distant future. It is certainly not a future I covet as a husband and as a father for my children. I certainly do not covet it as a parliamentarian. I would hope that we here in Parliament act as a significant check on those kinds of intrusions into our rights.

Are we doing the right thing by sharing this information with other security services? I frankly do not think so. Are we doing it because we have to? Largely that is true. We are doing it because we have to. If people want to travel to the United States, those will be the rules of the ball game. Will interim orders be abused? I do not know. I do not think so.

Parliament needs to be at the centre of the vigilance and protection of our rights. Let us hope that both Parliament and the committees will do their job.

Public Safety Act, 2002

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the NDP caucus I am pleased to join the debate on Bill C-17.

We note that Bill C-17 represents just the latest incarnation in a series of bills that have been introduced to try and address the aftermath of 9/11. It is a top of mind issue for every Canadian and for every global citizen as we take necessary steps to add to the security of ordinary Canadians and the sense of security that they should enjoy in a great country like Canada.

Bill C-17, building off of Bill C-42, building off of Bill C-55, building off of Bill C-36 attempts once again to find a reasonable balance between the needed measures that must be taken to give Canadians confidence and those precious personal rights and freedoms by which we define ourselves as Canadians. We believe that we are still struggling to find that balance and we are not satisfied that we are there yet today. We are still very concerned that Bill C-17 may fall under the quote that was referenced earlier, that those who would trade personal and individual rights and freedoms in exchange for short term and temporary security really deserve neither.

If we are willing to compromise the very personal freedoms by which we define ourselves as Canadians for an unproven commodity, we are really being asked to buy a pig in a poke because we are not even sure that the measures that are recommended under Bill C-17 in many ways will be satisfactory or will in fact improve the level of comfort that Canadians enjoy while being secure within our own boundaries. We are not sure that balance has been reached.

Bill C-17 will be an omnibus bill once again and will seek to address the issue of the safety of Canadians in a variety of acts. An enormous number of acts are influenced by the bill, for example the Aeronautics Act, the National Defence Act, the interim order of powers, the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority Act, the Marine Transportation Security Act, the Criminal Code, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. That will give an idea to those who might be listening at home how broad and sweeping Bill C-17 really is.

We have to question if the bill has really had enough scrutiny, attention and study. Even though we debated at length Bill C-36, Bill C-55 and then Bill C-42, the same issues that we on the opposition benches have raised over and over again either have not been taken seriously or someone has failed to understand the legitimate points that keep being raised over and over by the people on this side at least.

There are people who have gone the whole broad spectrum of criticism, and there are some who fear that we are starting up that slippery slope to a police state. I do not believe that personally. I think that is badly overstating the issue. We do have to caution when we make fundamental changes to the way we have always done things and the way things have always been treated that there are those who in their zeal or just in their willingness to do their jobs well may take advantage of these measures in areas where they were never meant to be used.

I think of the simple right to protest. I come from the labour movement where it is not uncommon for my colleagues and I to find ourselves in a confrontational situation as we take our arguments to some sort of act of civil disobedience, if one will. Now, especially in what are called new military zones, that type of protest could be seriously limited. The new authorities under Bill C-17 could be exercised to stifle that sort of legitimate protest. I raise that as a point that concerns the trade unionists very much, as did Bill C-55, Bill C-42 and all the other bills leading up to this. That is only one point.

I will speak for a moment to an issue raised by one of the members of the Canadian Alliance. The Alliance believes the police or customs authorities should not have additional powers when it comes to seizing the components of explosives. I disagree 100%. I believe our customs and revenue agents should have the right to seize the makings of explosives, just as much as they have the right to seize a bomb.

As a former blaster in underground and open pit mines, I know that fairly innocuous elements can become very dangerous when put together for the purposes of making a bomb. In the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City, which everyone remembers very well, the actual bomb that went off was made with ordinary Prell fertilizer. Anyone with a farming background will recognize that as a fertilizer farmers use every day. Diammonium phosphate mixed with ordinary diesel fuel blew up the Oklahoma federal building. Perhaps I should not use the brand name Prell but that is the common pellet form of that fertilizer.

Frankly, if I saw a customs officer seizing a shipment of Prell fertilizer, the purposes of which could not be clearly explained, I think those revenue agents would be doing us all a service to at least use added scrutiny when they see that type of material crossing our border. That is one element of Bill C-17 with which I have no objection at all. In fact, I applaud the initiative.

We believe that the broadening of the new military zones goes far beyond what is necessary. We note that the new military zones designated by order in council would include the Esquimalt military base and the area surrounding it, areas around Halifax, et cetera. We recognize that our military bases need to have additional scrutiny because if we are to be targeted in any way, our military zones would have to be viewed. We also think this could cross a line between what is needed and what may be used in another way.

I have seen anti-nuclear protestors outside the Nanoose Bay installations, for instance, on Vancouver Island. They were peaceful protestors who simply disagreed with allowing American nuclear submarines into Canadian waters. Under the new rules, those peaceful protestors could be hauled away, held without charge and have their personal freedom to protest violated under the bill.

The NDP has spoken out loudly against these additional measures, not all the measures but those we deem to be unnecessary and even questionable and of questionable benefit. No one has really been able to demonstrate to us why all these measures are absolutely necessary.

It was perfectly understandable after 9/11 that the government used a fairly scattergun approach. North America and our American colleagues were under attack. For all we know that same level of alert should still be in place today. However we are using a completely scattergun approach and, in our effort to cover the bases necessary, we believe we are going too far in covering things that may not have been necessary and may have been frivolous. A more cynical person would say that we are trying to achieve measures that could not be achieved through the normal course of legislation by giving additional powers to police and to officers, which the country would normally balk at.

The new tax on air transportation is one example where we believe the government took advantage of a desperate situation to initiate a tax grab that never would have been tolerated under normal circumstances. Under the guise of this renewed need to resecure our borders, we believe it snuck this new cash cow under the wire.

Let me just state for the record that the NDP caucus still opposes Bill C-17. We have serious reservations. We question the motivation of the introduction of many of these clauses. We look forward to having the opportunity to address them further.

Citizenship of Canada Act

[Inky Mark, Canadian Alliance, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to take part in this important debate on Bill C-18, the citizenship of Canada act.

First, let me congratulate the minister for borrowing ideas from Senator Noël Kinsella's Bill S-36, as well as my private member's bill, Bill C-417, which was tabled this past spring, the PC Party's version of the citizenship act of Canada.

I applaud and thank the member for Winnipeg North Centre for her kind remarks regarding the Ukrainian internment issue on which we had a press conference this past week. It was an educational process to inform Canadians of some of the bleaker moments in this country's history. We need to fix these things before we move ahead. The Ukrainian internment occurred from 1914 to 1920, where over 5,000 Ukrainian Canadians were interned and over 80,000 were made to register like common criminals.

There is a simple solution. The current Prime Minister wrote a letter to the Ukrainian community of Canada when he was the leader of the opposition back in 1993 telling the Ukrainian community that when he became Prime Minister he would deal with and resolve this issue. Unfortunately, the sad commentary is that the Ukrainian community, of which there are almost a million people in this country, is still waiting for this resolution.

It is simple to redress the issue. It will not cost the taxpayers any money. It will not even cost the government of the day an apology. It basically needs to recognize and acknowledge that the event took place. It was the first invocation of the War Measures Act which was passed in 1914. At that time the property of over 5,000 Ukrainian Canadians was confiscated, taken by the government of the day, and not a nickel has been returned to the rightful owners. It is time for this issue to be resolved.

As has been said this morning, this is the Liberal government's third crack at trying to pass a citizenship act. We heard about Bill C-63 and Bill C-16, both of which died on the order paper. If major changes do not take place regarding Bill C-18, I think it will end up in the same garbage container.

At this time I wish to thank the member for Kitchener—Waterloo who, through his fierce opposition during the debate on Bill C-16, brought to the government's attention some of its gross inadequacies, which we still find in this bill. Bill C-18 was supposed to be better than Bill C-16. Upon reading the bill I wonder whether it is or not.

Nevertheless there are some improvements. The criticism of Bill C-16, Bill C-36 and the former citizenship bills, which I consider more like naturalization bills of the Liberal government, has been that those bills promoted two classes of Canadian citizenship: one for those who were born in this country, and another one for those who were born elsewhere and came to Canada by choice.

The member for Kitchener—Waterloo, and other backbench members of the Liberal government, vehemently opposed this theory that there should be two classes of citizenship in this country. Last week the member for Kitchener—Waterloo introduced his own private member's bill, which I seconded. This hon. member would remedy these two classes of citizenship by placing the citizenship revocation process under the judiciary, with appeal rights, where it would be administered according to the principles of fundamental justice. That is why Canadians believe we have equality in this country. Until that happens we will never have equality in this country.

That is exactly the problem with clause 17 of Bill C-18. The irony of this is that former Bill C-16 put in place the solutions to remedy the problems within it. However, clause 17 in Bill C-18 reverses all of that.

Former Bill C-16 talked about judicial review—that we, as Canadians, should have access to the courts—but clause 17 in Bill C-18 reverses it.

Subclause 18(1), regarding the issue of annulment orders states:

If the Minister is satisfied that a person has, after the coming into force of this section, acquired, retained, renounced or resumed citizenship in contravention of section 28 or by using a false identity, the Minister may, by order, declare that the acquisition, retention, renunciation or resumption of citizenship is void.

In other words the minister has the right to revoke a person's citizenship. We call it an annulment. Subclause 18(5) dealing with limitation states:

The Minister may not make an order under subsection (1) more than five years after the day on which the citizenship was acquired--

In other words whoever receives citizenship is not secure in the first five years of obtaining citizenship in this country. Is it less than full citizenship of this country after five years? The government has it in reverse. If we think that people need to demonstrate evidence before acquiring citizenship, that is a different issue. Perhaps it should move the three year waiting period to five years, not do it after the fact.

My own belief and the belief of most Canadians is that once a person becomes a citizen, that person is a citizen and has the same full equal rights as everybody else. It is unbelievable that the government would take that attitude and that approach.

What about the rule of law? What about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Does that not apply within the first five years of obtaining citizenship? It does not under this legislation.

A just society is based on the rule of law. It is so ironic that this country takes time and effort into teaching other countries. For example, we have Canadians abroad in China teaching the Chinese how to operate under the rule of law because it is something that is missing in their system of politics. Yet at the same time at home we seem to fudge the whole area of the rule of law and the right of access to the judicial system.

We are still saying that government ministers, orders in council and governors in council can dictate whether one should have access to the courts when one is already a citizen of this country. We cannot do that. Either we are full fledged Canadians or not Canadians at all. Otherwise we will have two classes of citizens, which we have today.

In my private member's bill, Bill C-417, clause 17 clearly describes the loss of citizenship. It states:

The right of citizenship may be revoked only by the due process of law and on the grounds prescribed by law.

That is the kind of statement and clause we need in Bill C-18.

Earlier this past spring Senator Noël Kinsella tabled the same bill in the Senate that I did in the House. We considered our bill to be a citizenship bill whereas Bill C-18 is seen more as a naturalization bill.

What is lacking in Bill C-18? We should be excited about citizenship in this country. What is missing in Bill C-18 is a preamble. It should create an atmosphere of passion and commitment to this country. I will give the House our ideas of what should be a preamble to create this air of excitement when one becomes a citizen of Canada.

Our preamble would read:

Whereas Canadian citizenship is a special treasure of inestimable value to be nurtured and promoted;

Whereas the heritage of Canadian citizens speaks to their ancient and beautiful lands which they inhabit in peace with nature;

Whereas Parliament is mindful of the dignity and worth of all Canadian citizens and the rich contribution that each can make to the growth of Canada; whereas the Constitution Act, 1867, the common law, the Civil Code, the Canadian Bill of Rights, the Constitution Act, 1982, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and other enactments trace the relationships among Canadian citizens over the years;

Whereas active citizens, through their labours, their democratic institutions and their laws, have built a peaceful nation where they may enjoy the harvest of nature and exercise their enterprises throughout Canada and the world community, while safeguarding the land, its creatures and resources;

Whereas the citizens of Canada enjoy the benefits of peace and prosperity, and they should be given an opportunity to make a contribution, each according to their talents and abilities; and

Whereas it is desirable to enact a measure to celebrate, protect and codify the riches of Canadian citizenship.

In other words, our version of the Citizenship Act, Bills S-36 and C-417, deals with the broad concept of citizenship as it applies to all Canadians and would replace the existing Canadian Citizenship Act which deals principally with the naturalization process. It states in positive terms the status, the rights and obligations of Canadian citizenship, encouraging all citizens to participate fully in the life and growth of the nation. It provides a modern form of oath of loyalty to be taken by new citizens and allows existing citizens to take the oath to reaffirm their loyalty to Canada if they choose to do so.

The Canadian citizenship commission would be established with a duty to promote an understanding of the nature of citizenship and respect for its value. We have heard the idea of values spoken about this morning; Canadian values, values that we believe in, such as the right to judicial process, the right to be treated equally in this country.

The commission would also advise the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration of proposed programs and events that would promote and celebrate Canada and Canadian citizenship.

Citizenship councillors would be appointed to continue the work of the former citizenship judges. They would preside at citizenship ceremonies, promote citizenship and may advise the minister on applications for citizenship. Members of the commission would be appointed from among those who hold the office of citizenship councillor.

The enactment would confirm the principal rights and responsibilities of citizens and would set out the manner in which citizenship is acquired. It would provide for the continued acquisition of citizenship at birth for everyone born in Canada. The residency for immigrants and refugees to obtain citizenship would be based on actual presence in Canada.

The distinction made between adopted children and children born abroad of Canadian parents is lessened for the purpose of acquiring citizenship. A right to transmit citizenship to persons born abroad of Canadian parents would be limited to the first and second generations, which I know the government borrowed from us in Bill C-18.

The enactment would continue the authority of the minister to annul the citizenship of persons who obtain their citizenship by using false identity or who were subject to prohibitions. It would allow the minister to refuse to grant citizenship on the advice of a review committee when national security required it. That is understandable. This is pre-citizenship, but the idea of the minister having the right to revoke or annul citizenship after one obtains citizenship goes against the belief in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It goes against the grain of equal treatment in this country.

Our enactment would establish a new Canadian citizenship tribunal which would consider whether an application for citizenship should be refused on the basis of public interest. If in such a case the tribunal so advises, the governor in council may refuse to grant citizenship. Again, this is pre-citizenship not post, as we would have by the Liberal government's Bill C-18.

We would also establish a process for dealing with applications for citizenship that is administrative rather than judicial. That would certainly streamline the process and would also standardize the process even further.

Prohibition and offences related to citizenship and its acquisition would be established in order to maintain the integrity of Canadian citizenship.

Many of the points that I raised may be found in Bill C-18. I applaud the minister for taking an open-minded approach and borrowing good ideas when he sees them.

At this point in time the PC Party of Canada certainly cannot support the bill in its present state, based on that one principle that we still have a scenario in the bill under clause 17 which creates an air of two classes of citizenship. We agree with many of the points and with many of the changes that have occurred in Bill C-18. However, until that one scenario changes, my recommendation is that the PC Party vote against the bill.

I look forward to seeing the bill go to committee where we will listen to witnesses and make some major changes. Hopefully we will come up with a draft that is reasonable and supportable.

Public Safety

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, once again the hon. member has not done his homework. The fact is within the same time frame as the U.S., we passed Bill C-36 and Bill C-44, and we have a third bill that will go through that reflects the opinions of everyone in the House.

Points of Order

[Carol Skelton, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to ask for a ruling regarding the announcement of the entire legislative agenda by the government House leader outside the House at the National Press Club yesterday morning.

I raise this matter in the following context. The report of the modernization committee recommended on page 4:

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

This report was adopted by the House. One of its authors is the government House leader who signed off on the report and moved the motion to have it adopted.

My first question to the Chair is, would this not be considered a matter of misleading the House, to say in an official report and to Parliament that something will be done and then turn around and do something else?

I also want the House to consider this in the context of the leak of Bill C-15 and Bill C-36 in the previous session. When the context of the bill was leaked, the Speaker ruled the matter to be a prima facie question of privilege. Obviously leaking information about government legislation that is intended for the House is a serious matter. The Speaker ruled on this matter and said:

In preparing legislation, the government may wish to hold extensive consultations and such consultations may be held entirely at the government's discretion. However, with respect to material to be placed before Parliament, the House must take precedence.... To deny to members information concerning business that is about to come before the House, while at the same time providing such information to media that will likely be questioning members about that business, is a situation that the Chair cannot condone.

This is what the government House leader had to say during the debate on the question of privilege:

I cannot say much more other than to apologize on behalf of whoever is guilty of this. I use the word guilty because that is what comes to mind, given the respect that I have for this institution.

I will repeat that line, “given the respect that I have for this institution”. He continued:

Anyone who breaches that respect is guilty of an offence in my book.

I believe the House leader for the Conservatives referred to this as privileged information. Actually it is more than that. It is secret, secret in the very sense of government secrecy.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you, if leaking information on one bill is an offence to the House, surely leaking the entire agenda to the press club is offensive to the House.

To give an idea of the impact that this had on me personally, I refer to yesterday's CBC Newsworld interview by Don Newman. He was interviewing all the House leaders and in his lead-in comments mentioned that he was going to talk to us about the legislative agenda and then mentioned that this agenda was announced at the press club yesterday morning.

I had no idea of the contents of that announcement. Don Newman knew more than I did and probably more than any other House leader on the panel, except maybe the government House leader. I did not expect to hunt down this information because such an announcement, at a minimum, should have been given to the House leaders at the House leaders' weekly meeting, or perhaps in the House during the Thursday question or by a statement by minister.

The government House leader put members, and particularly the House leaders, at a disadvantage and gave a huge advantage to the media.

How can this be defined as respect for this institution as the minister said in the House?

I also want to mention that the Minister of Canadian Heritage made a major announcement yesterday outside the House regarding parks. Also, today before question period our solicitor general made a statement to the media regarding questions put to him yesterday in the House. Therefore, they knew before we did.

Is it some sort of a government strategy to fan out all over the country and misrepresent the role of Parliament? The government's dismissive view of the House and its members is contemptuous.

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and participate in the reply to the throne speech.

The first speech that I gave in the House was in February 2001 in response to the throne speech at that time which followed the 2000 election. Since that time I have delivered many other speeches on a diverse number of issues. However I will always remember that first maiden speech, and it is a pleasure to stand again and respond to this Speech from the Throne.

Like so many speakers before me, I would like to comment on what can only be classified as misnomers within the throne speech, beginning with the line in the throne speech that says:

The government will continue to work with its allies to ensure the safety and security of Canadians.

This line is preceded by another line which makes mention of the events of September 11. One can only surmise then that the government is referring to Canada doing its part to assist the world with the war on terrorism. My question is: How can Canada be of any assistance or do its part on the war on terrorism when we do not have the resources, the capability or the political will that is required to sustain a battle of the magnitude needed to bring down individuals and regimes like Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Hezbollah, Hamas and the Tamil tigers?

Our security and intelligence agencies have been financially starved for so long that the RCMP and CSIS do not have the resources to investigate or apprehend criminals operating in this country let alone assist other nations in determining who may be operating abroad.

Long before the attack on America, the Canadian Alliance had been demanding that the Liberal government beef up resources with a significant cash infusion that would allow the RCMP and CSIS to train and hire the desperately needed officers and skilled analysts that CSIS in particular had asked for and who were out there to combat terrorism and organized crime. However those demands have never been met.

We also demanded that the government allow for the listing of terrorist groups. Although it finally did concede to this request, what it finally offered was much too little and much too late.

This past July, some seven months after Bill C-36 received royal assent, the Solicitor General provided a list of entities deemed illegal terrorist organizations. How many were on the list? The Americans and the British had over 50 on their lists. Canada came up with seven. It is absolutely unbelievable and appalling that it took the Liberal government that long to determine and make public the fact that groups like al-Qaeda were in fact terrorist organizations. There are dozens of terrorist organizations and groups knowingly operating around the world. It is an absolute disgrace that the government has seen fit to list seven of those groups pursuant to the Anti-terrorism Act.

Is the Tamil tigers of Sri Lanka who have perpetrated more suicide bombings than all other terrorist groups combined listed? No it is not. Are Hamas and Islamic Jihad that are responsible for the slaughter of hundreds in Israel listed? No they are not. What about Hezbollah whose deadly attacks include the 1983 murder of 241 United States marines in Beirut? Was it listed? No it was not.

On July 25, in regard to the Solicitor General's listed entities of terrorists the National Post wrote, “For refusing to declare that the slaughter of Israel's Jews and Sri Lanka's Buddhists is true terrorism, this federal government should hang its head in shame”.

Because of this government's failure to effectively recognize and fight the evils of terrorism, the Wall Street Journal this week concluded that our Prime Minister was soft on terrorism and “he has a misplaced pity for terrorists”.

The fact is this. The Liberal government has a misplaced pity for criminals in general and that is why it failed to tighten laws against possession of child pornography and establish the national sex offender registry which until today we have been left in limbo over.

In the throne speech the government promises to reform the Criminal Code, to increase penalties for abuse and neglect of children. This quite obviously is a misnomer given the justice minister's reluctance to pass an outright ban on child pornography altogether. The sexual exploitation of children is one of the most sadistic abuses of children and yet the government has failed to effectively put a stop to it. My response to that is, if the government cannot handle the job, then get out of the way and let someone in who can handle it.

There just is not enough time today to adequately address all the misnomers of the throne speech and attempt by the government to pave some type of direction. The direction that the government is going is sad and Canadians are disappointed with it.

However before closing I must point out what is by far the most controversial issue of concern to the people in my riding and to the people and the Province of Alberta, and that is the government's intention to ratify the Kyoto accord.

In mid-October I wrote the Alberta Premier Klein to encourage him to continue opposing Kyoto and to acknowledge his decisive victory at the 43rd annual premiers conference in receiving unanimous provincial support for a first ministers conference on the Kyoto accord. Mr. Klein has stood firm in his belief that there should not be a quick ratification of the accord as there must be further scientific review and research. More evidence needs to be put forward as to the effects of the Kyoto accord.

The Alberta premier has in the opinion of the Canadian Alliance spoken not only on behalf of Albertans but of all Canadians inasmuch as if our economy fails, which it inevitable will with the Kyoto accord, there will be a huge ripple effect that will be felt all across the country.

I firmly believe, as do so many of my constituents, that the Kyoto timeline to cut emissions is too short. It will kill jobs, seriously weaken our economy and undermine our competitive advantage in relationship to our chief competitor in that industry, the United States.

As the government's resolve to ratify the accord is intensified, as demonstrated by the Speech from the Throne, our resolve to fight the ratification is increased because, while Alberta cannot afford to lose thousands of jobs and some $8 billion in the economy or in investments, Canada cannot withstand such economic devastation. We fully support reducing greenhouse gases but we do not support the Kyoto accord.

When the throne speech was delivered, I sat and listened for other issues that would touch and speak to my constituency of Crowfoot. In the worst drought in 133 years on record, covering 80% of our province and much of Saskatchewan, I was waiting to hear what the government was willing to bring forward in regard to help for agriculture and to the agricultural sector. I waited and the Liberals did not respond to the concerns of agriculture. There was one short sentence that was the same old agricultural philosophy rehashed time after time leaving the farming sector with not much hope.

The government has no new plan. It is dependent on old 1993 promises of the red book that it still has not fulfilled. It is not looking forward to the future of the country; it is looking back. What the government is leaving is not much hope in the way of the future. It is a government that is dealing with agriculture that is much like the rabbit in the headlight syndrome, not knowing which way to turn.

When we talk about the concerns and frustrations in the agricultural sector, we do not have the strong representation of a cabinet minister around a cabinet table fighting for the concerns of agriculture out west. He is absent. He has no plan or action. The minister has no assistance, and it is leaving Alberta farmers with little or no hope.

I encourage the federal government to look much beyond the throne speech because it is too full of holes, to look beyond to issues and legislation that will help the economy, not push Alberta and the gas and oil industry back into the dark ages but bring it forward. The throne speech fails to do so.