Bill C-55 (Historical)

Appropriation Act No. 3, 2003-2004

An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 2004

Question No. 21

[Murray Calder, Liberal, Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, ON]

The member across the way asks what do I know about this. I have had firsthand experience with this.

The question that has always been asked is: Where were you on September 11? I happened to be in Saskatoon with the Prime Minister's task force on future opportunities in farming.

Camelot died that day as far as I am concerned. From that time on air travel would never be the same. As a government we must respond to that reality. The general public right now is basically nervous about air traffic. The number of air travellers has declined. We must put back that comfort level with travellers so that they know that air travel is safe.

Canada has a next door neighbour of over 300 million people. We do over a billion dollars of trade a day across our border. We must have seamless traffic that is safe and that is what part of the bill would deal with. We must ensure that the truck traffic crossing the border is not interrupted, but it must always be safe. Canada's economy is based on how the bill would deal with the safety factor of the nation.

At the present time the United States is taking a look at a number of initiatives within its own country. We must have a meshing of how these initiatives are undertaken. We must have shared technology and data. It must be transparent and seamless to make this thing work properly.

One of the items included in Bill C-17 is that the bill would look at enhancing the ability of the Government of Canada to provide a secure environment for air travel. I know that when I returned from Saskatoon on September 11 I made it a point to see what had taken place at Pearson Airport in Toronto. Quite frankly it was something I had never seen before and I have travelled out of that airport since 1993.

There was a line that was over 200 feet long approaching the ticketing agent. The people were being screened and there were all matters of identification going on because of the heightened security. There was a SWAT team at the airport. I had never seen a SWAT team in an airport before, but there was one there a few days after September 11.

Once a person went through that 200 foot line to get your ticket there was another 200 foot line and that was to pass through security before reaching the other side to board the plane. That was the best we could do at that point in time to address an unforeseen situation. We must have legislation that is flexible enough to take and address unforeseen situations. We have already been named in the latest audio release and told that there could be other terrorist attacks. We must ensure that we are ready for it. To facilitate that we need data sharing between air carriers, federal departments and agencies for the purpose of transportation and national security.

Why do I say this? It is because our whole economy is based on it. We are an exporting nation. Some 44% of what we produce we export. Some 85% of that goes to the United States. These are big dollars that we are talking about. We must have something in place that we can take and address it.

We must allow for the issuance of interim orders in emergency situations, while ensuring that there are proper controls over government actions. We must make it flexible. We do not know exactly what we could be dealing with.

We also have to deter hoaxes that endanger the public or heighten public anxiety. That for me is a no-brainer. We know now that people standing in security lines do not mention anything about terrorism or things else like that because we are looking at heightened security. I agree with that.

We have to establish tighter controls over explosives and hazardous substances, activities related to other dangerous substances such as pathogens and the export and transfer of technology. As an exporting nation these things have to be in place to ensure that goods can freely flow back and forth with our biggest trading partner.

We have to help identify and prevent harmful unauthorized use or interference with computer systems operated by counterterrorism agencies, and to deter the proliferation of biological weapons.

All of us now have our own electronic identity and we have to ensure that we have a computer system in place that cannot be hacked into by different forces. One thing we have found is that terrorist organizations obviously run on money. If they do not have the money, then they are unable to carry on their operations.

We want to see the Government of Canada proceed on the guiding principle that our approach to national security can always be improved. For any unforeseen situations, we have to look at how we handle them today and how we can improve the situation to handle them better tomorrow.

Work is ongoing among various organizations in the public safety community to ensure that legislation, policies and operations remain current with and relevant to the rapidly evolving public security environment. As a result, the proposed legislation still includes some of the key amendments that were made to Bill C-55, just to address that.

The provisions in the public safety act of 2002 would require air carriers to provide passenger information on specific persons to designated persons in Transport Canada or on persons onboard any flight to designated persons in the RCMP or CSIS and the proposed scheme would include strict controls on access, use and disclosure. I am totally in agreement with that.

About three and a half months after September 11, I was flying from Vancouver to Toronto. While I was reading my newspaper, all of a sudden I looked down at the back of the seat in front of me and pulled out the flight information about the aircraft. It was a 767. It was the same plane that went into the towers. The hair on the back of my neck stood up. However I want to show the travelling public that we have the proper process, laws and legislation in place. It was unwarranted for the hairs to stand up on the back of my neck. I really had nothing to worry about because everything was taken care of.

Amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act are also proposed to support data sharing for limited public interest purposes and to expressly provide for it in law. That is only common sense. We already have a screening process in the Immigration Act and in laws of the country to find out the backgrounds of people who try to immigrate to Canada. Were they involved in terrorism in the past or do they have a criminal record? All these things are definitely points of interest. We have to have information on people coming into Canada.

Bill C-17 is a very good first step forward in ensuring that our boundaries are secure and that when we travel on any public transit system it is safe too because it has been covered.

[Murray Calder, Liberal, Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak about the public safety act, Bill C-17, which would replace Bill C-55 which died on the Order Paper when the government prorogued in September.

The bill would build on the government's anti-terrorism plan and the $7.7 billion commitment that we made in the budget 2001.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to debate Bill C-17, which was formerly Bill C-55, the public safety act.

Canadians have had great concern about our security since the horrible occurrences at the World Trade Center in New York about one year ago on September 11. Of late we have had renewed interest and concern after the news came that a tape which purportedly contained the voice of Osama bin Laden was presented to the al-Jazeera network in the Middle East. If it was bin Laden on the tape, the person put forward the suggestion that other countries besides the U.S. would be targeted and included Canada on the list of targeted countries.

It is not a complete surprise to Canadians that our country might be targeted by al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups. To have our country included in the list that is mentioned has caused concern for Canadians and has brought this issue home to more people. The threat of terrorism that confronts much of the world is one that confronts us as well and one that we must deal with. At the same time Canadians are concerned and want to see us act in a forceful and firm way to do what we can to prevent, deter and respond to terrorism. They also want to ensure that we protect individual freedoms.

I said in a speech not long after September 11 of last year that the openness that makes us vulnerable is the freedom that makes us strong. That speaks to the kind of balance that we must achieve. It would have been easy a year ago to respond to the events of 9/11 by simply, out of fear, shutting down all kinds of things.

If, God forbid, there was a successful attack in Canada by terrorists there might be a greater demand for severe actions. However, we must guard against that because we must maintain our openness and freedoms. That is one of the beauties of having the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which of course will apply to this legislation.

There were a lot of concerns last year when the first draft of this bill was introduced about some of its provisions, but it is important to remind all Canadians that any of these bills that deal with public security, unless they actually say it is notwithstanding the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the charter and all its provisions and protections to personal freedoms would apply to those bills. If there are provisions in any bill which go too far, it is open to the courts to say this bill or this portion of this bill would be struck out and not apply. Therefore, it is important to understand that whatever provisions are in a bill like this, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms would still apply and our freedoms would be guaranteed and maintained.

It is clear that at the time of 9/11 the concern of most people was focused on the airline industry. Obviously we have watched with horror as those two enormous jet airplanes with so many passengers crashed into the World Trade Center twin towers. Naturally for a while our focus was clearly on airline security. It is important that we not forget to do that. There are provisions in this bill that I will talk about in a moment that go further, that ensure we are protecting our airline security as much as we can.

We have become, over the past year since that occurrence, more cognizant of the fact that there are many other things to be concerned about. In fact we had a list that was released last week, purportedly from the U.S. government, which Mr. Powell said was not from the government. We have had other reports that it was not an official document.

It was an interesting list of some 20 or so sites in Canada that might be targets for terrorism. It would not take a rocket scientist to figure out that some of those spots might be targets. However at the same time, without getting overly worried or too alarmed about this, it is valuable for us as Canadians to consider these different sites and consider the fact that they could conceivably be terrorist targets. We need to think about what things we can reasonably do in relation to these different sites to make them more secure and to provide a reasonable level of security.

That raises the question of whether we can ever provide ultimate, complete security over all sites. If we insist on having an open, democratic and free society, then we cannot live in a police state. We cannot live in a state where the police can check on us for anything it wants or enter our homes and search us whenever it wants for no reason at all. There has to be a rule of law. There has to be a basis for doing things. It is important that we maintain our freedoms otherwise the freedom that is our strength is out the window. We then become like a dictatorship and that is the last thing that we need here in Canada.

The government is trying to find a proper balance. It is trying to provide a good balance between the rights and freedoms of Canadians as well as the need to provide more security. That has been improved in a number of ways in the latest form of this bill.

Bill C-17 would enhance the government's ability to provide a secure environment for air travel. There is no question that we need to see that. We have seen concern over the past year in the airline industry. Airports, particularly in the early months after 9/11, have had a lot less traffic. There has been a lot of concern about issues like tourism and its effect on our whole economy. People were not comfortable flying or travelling. Obviously the economic impact was severe. It was therefore important for us to take steps early on, and it is still important to take steps to enhance the public's confidence in airline travel. I am pleased to see that kind of provision in the bill.

The bill would facilitate data sharing between air carriers and agencies like the RCMP and CSIS. In the case of the RCMP, information could be used for issues relating only to transportation safety. For example, in the original bill, if individuals had an outstanding warrant against them and were spotted, the RCMP could use that information to arrest those individual. In this case, unless there is a danger to transportation safety there is no basis for the RCMP to arrest such a person. It cannot use the information except when there is a risk to transportation safety.

CSIS is a little broader. It has different responsibilities obviously. One might argue that it is the lead agency responsible for confronting issues relating to terrorism in our country. CSIS would be able to use this information for either transportation safety or issues of national security. That is natural and sensible. However at the same time, it is important that it be limited in the way it could use that information. Those are important limits that would guarantee our freedoms.

The bill would provide for the issuance of interim orders in emergency situations while ensuring proper control over government action. I want to speak for a minute about the interim orders provided for in Bill C-17.

The important thing to note is that under the bill a minister would have the authority to issue orders. This would be in a case where there is an immediate or direct threat. It would have to be an urgent situation where it would be impossible to have a full meeting of cabinet to pass orders in council. It would involve something happening on the ground and the government having to respond immediately. That is what we are talking about here.

The bill would provide for a minister to issue an interim order under certain requirements but there would be a number of important controls on that order. This would cover matters for which regulations would normally have been made but, of course, regulations cannot be made in five minutes. It would have to be dealt with quickly and in a situation where there is an immediate threat.

These are things that would normally fall within the mandate of the Ministers of the Environment, Health, Fisheries and Oceans and Transport, like the following acts; the Aeronautics Act; the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999; the Department of Health Act; the Food and Drugs Act; the Hazardous Products Act; and many more.

The important thing is that the minister would then have to get approval from the governor in council within 14 days after the day the interim order is made. A copy of the order must be tabled in each House of Parliament within 15 days from the time it is issued. Those are important controls on that interim order. That is a reduction from 45 days to 15 days.

There are many other provisions in the bill that are of interest to members. I am sure they will be fully discussed. However, I wanted to focus on those matters.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to debate Bill C-17, the public safety act.

Everyone around the world is reassessing their approach to public safety, particularly after the events of September 11. People in countries such as Canada that are potential targets for terrorist operations or terrorist threats have to deal very responsibly and assertively with this very real threat.

It is always a challenge to balance off public safety against the privacy issue of our citizens. Our government has done a very good job in making sure that happens.

Bill C-17 replaces Bill C-55 which was introduced on April 29, 2002 but died on the Order Paper when Parliament was prorogued in September. The new bill repeats many of those provisions but there have been some enhancements also. Many Canadians expressed concern over certain privacy issues and the government listened.

The provisions require air carriers to provide passenger information to designated persons in Transport Canada, the RCMP or CSIS. This proposed scheme would include strict controls on access, use and disclosure of information so that it does not go to anybody who wants that information just for their own benefit or purpose. There is a very strict control on who can access that information and for what purpose.

In addition, the ministers must respond more quickly to the Parliament of Canada if they have to use various emergency measures. The period of time within which ministers would be required to table interim orders before Parliament has been reduced to 15 days, whether Parliament is in session or not. The period during which ministers must obtain cabinet approval has also been reduced to 14 days for all statutes. In Bill C-55 in many cases it was 45 days which created some concerns among some of our citizens.

This new provision will allow ministers to act rapidly to address risks in emergency situations while putting into place proper oversight mechanisms.

The bill is meant to enact a number of provisions that were in Bill C-55, but it also includes some enhancements, particularly addressing some of the privacy concerns that Canadians raised in the interim period.

The bill enhances the ability of the government to provide a secure environment for air travel. This is something most Canadians are looking for and the bill responds to that. It facilitates data sharing between air carriers and federal departments and agencies for the purposes of transportation and national security. It allows for the issuance of interim orders in emergency situations while ensuring that there is proper transparency and accountability.

The bill will deter hoaxes that endanger the public or heighten public anxiety. We have seen the signs regarding airport security which say that a person cannot joke about various weapons or materials they may or may not have in their possession. This puts that into a legislative context and makes it a very serious offence.

The bill also establishes tighter controls over explosives and hazardous substances, activities related to other dangerous substances such as pathogens, and the export and transfer of technology.

When we go to the airport we want to know that the concerns about security are being dealt with and the bill deals with that. It also deals with those who would cause some difficulty on aircraft. We have heard about air rage, individuals who cause a lot of problems on aircraft.

Our family has a good friend who is a member of the cabin crew on one of the major airlines. She told us of the incidents of air rage and the various different forms and shades. Some are much more serious than others.

We heard about an incident the other day, where someone on an El Al plane ran up to the cockpit door with a weapon. El Al has air marshals on just about every plane. They were able to wrestle the chap and he was arrested when the plane landed in Ankara.

The government has called for cockpit doors to be virtually impenetrable. Some of the cockpit crew and the pilots would like either to have weapons or to have marshals on all the flights. I know that we will have a debate on this. I am in agreement with our minister when he talks about some of the dangers of having weapons on board. There are air marshals now on flights going to the United States, but whether we need to increase their number is something we need to debate more in Canada.

The government in budget 2001 brought in measures totalling approximately $7.7 billion over a number of years which would increase and enhance Canada's security. That is the commitment that was made. These measures will counter the activities of terrorists and make our border much safer where we can ensure that terrorists and people with those sort of intentions are screened more readily.

We are not so concerned about the low risk people who go back and forth across our border. That is why the government has instituted with the U.S. government a system of preclearance and pre-authorization so that the low risk people and carriers can cross the border freely. Eighty-seven per cent of our exports go to the United States. We have to ensure that we have a border where people and goods move freely.

We also know there are many travellers and many vehicles where there is virtually no risk of terrorist activity or smuggling of any type. The new provisions allow for the safe movement of people and vehicles that are low risk or no risk but make sure that higher risk people or carriers are dealt with and queried. This is to ensure that they do not have access to the United States or Canada to commit various acts of violence, whether they be terrorism or engaging in money laundering activities, taking money back and forth across the border to finance terrorist activities.

I am glad to see that Fintrac, the agency that was set up by the federal government to address money laundering activities, is operating fully. It tracks transactions that are accepted by deposit taking institutions and other financial intermediaries. It ensures that those amounts are reported and investigated if there is any suspicion they might be related to money laundering activities and money laundering that would be devoted especially to any type of terrorist activities.

The bill also deters the proliferation of biological weapons. We all know what is happening today in Iraq. Most Canadians hope that Saddam Hussein, the leader in Iraq, will cooperate with the weapons inspectors and that if any weapons of mass destruction are located they will be destroyed and we can avert a war that would be very costly, not only in terms of money but in terms of human lives and the well-being of many people.

We should get on with this bill. I ask the members opposite to support Bill C-17. It is a good bill and we should get behind it.

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Secretary of State (Children and Youth)]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give a bit of context to the amendments we are speaking to today. On October 1 the proposed public safety act, 2002 was introduced into first reading in Parliament. The new bill replaces Bill C-55 which was introduced on April 29 but died on the Order Paper when Parliament was prorogued in September.

The proposed safety act, 2002 contains key provisions that would increase the Government of Canada's capacity to prevent terrorist attacks, protect Canadians and respond swiftly should a significant threat arise. Public safety and security requires a collective effort of a number of partners including industry. At the same time the government will continue its commitment to protecting the security of Canadians while upholding individual freedoms and right to privacy in a marketplace.

The introduction of this bill builds on the Government of Canada's anti-terrorism plan and the $7.7 billion commitment in budget 2001 to keep Canada safe, terrorists out and the border open.

Much has been said about what is not happening. What has not been made clear to the Canadian public is just exactly how complicated, how involved and how extensive and comprehensive the work is that needs to be done by the whole of government, every department and every aspect of government, in a regulatory sense.

If we look at this, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration is dealing with Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. DFAIT is dealing with the Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention Implementation Act and the Export and Imports Permit Act. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is dealing with the Navigable Waters Protection Act. DND is dealing with the National Defence Act. Environment Canada is dealing with the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. The Department of Finance is dealing with the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act, the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act and the Terrorist Financing Act which has been worked on for awhile. Health Canada is dealing with the Canada Health Act, the Food and Drugs Act, Hazardous Products Act, Pest Control Products Act, Quarantine Act and the Radiation Emitting Devices Act. The Department of Industry is dealing with Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. The Department of Justice is dealing with the Criminal Code. Natural Resources Canada is dealing with the Explosives Act and the National Energy Board Act. Transport Canada is dealing with the Aeronautics Act, Canadian Air Transport Security Authority Act, Canada Shipping Act, Canada Shipping Act, 2001 and Marine Transportation Act 1999.

Consequential are the Access to Information Act and the Transportation Appeal Tribunal Act as well as all of the other regulatory work that has to be undertaken. This is just to give a small sample of all of the things that need to happen. That would probably take up all of my 10 minutes if I were to go on about that. However I want to focus on the transportation issues.

Through Bill C-17, the Government of Canada is committed to protecting the safety and security of Canada's transportation system. Transport Canada has been looking at all models of transport through different acts of Parliament to ensure appropriate security measures are in place and will consider all reasonable actions to enhance the safety and security of the transportation system. The focus of the transport related amendments contained in Bill C-17 is aeronautics, although there are minor amendments to the Marine Transportation Security Act and the Canada Shipping Act.

The department has been engaged in significant work on security issues with other federal departments and agencies, international organizations and foreign governments.

To understand the context of what is in this public safety act, it is important to understand that the government has been acting on many fronts in seeking to raise even higher standards for aviation security, some of which I have mentioned already.

This government has made significant improvements to the safety of Canadians with regard to transportation in the country since September of 2001. Last October the government announced a wide range of new initiatives to enhance the security of operations at Canada's airports. Then in December the budget carried through on these initiatives providing $2.2 billion for air and marine security initiatives such as the creation of a Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, CATSA.

Preboard screening at Canadian airports has been enhanced with the addition of new funding of up to $128 million per year. This is a significant investment.

Funding of over $1 billion was identified over the next five years for the purchase, deployment and operation of advanced explosive detection systems at airports across the country, covering 99% of all air passengers.

As frequent travellers, members of Parliament know only too well how serious those individuals undertake the work they do in terms of making travel secure for all passengers, for the airlines, and for all Canadians. I am sure that it will be well known that much of the newly purchased equipment will enhance the system and make it far more efficient.

Funding of up to $35 million over two years was also provided to help airlines cover the cost of security modifications, including the reinforcement of cockpit doors, to existing passenger aircraft resulting from new standards and regulations currently in development. Funding was also provided for further significant increases to Transport Canada staffing associated with aviation security functions, including hiring new inspectors to provide increased oversight of aviation security.

On the marine side, funding of $60 million over the next six years was identified to protect ports and other critical infrastructure from terrorist attacks.

There have been further enhancements made to aviation security, such as requiring that all passengers in Canada be subject to new limits on carry-on luggage and all passengers travelling on flights bound for the U.S. be subject to random secondary searches at the departure gate prior to boarding the aircraft.

In line with our belief that aviation security must be looked at in a global sense, in February Transport Canada provided $350,000 to help fund the International Civil Aviation Organization's security oversight audit program. The purpose of the audit program is to identify needed remedial action, promote greater understanding of systemic security issues and build confidence in aviation security. In addition, the audit program will identify potential deficiencies in security oversight systems of member countries and will provide suitable recommendations for resolving any such deficiencies.

As I mentioned, the December budget also included the provisions to create the Air Transport Security Authority, which is now responsible for the provision of several key aviation security services in Canada, such as preboard screening of passengers and their belongings, the certification of screening officers, the acquisition, deployment and maintenance of explosive detection equipment at airports and federal contributions for airport police and related civil aviation security initiatives and contracting for police on board aircraft.

There are a couple of amendments included in Bill C-17 to clarify that CATSA is also clearly required to comply with any emergency directions as are related to the delivery of screening services in Canada. In addition, CATSA will be required to implement a security management system which will be subject to inspection by Transport Canada.

Also the definition of “screening point” in the CATSA act is being clarified to more clearly indicate that an authorized aerodrome operator may act on behalf of the authority in the delivery of screening services. An important amendment deals with the authority of CATSA to enter into agreements with airport authorities for the purpose of contributing toward the cost of policing incurred by that airport authority in carrying out its responsibilities. This authority is being extended to all airports subject to the reaching of agreements between CATSA and the airport authority.

The Minister of Transport has already spoken twice on the public safety act only to find that the bill was delayed through the actions of some members of the opposition parties which have done nothing to hasten the bill into committee. Some members complain that we have done nothing, but they should look in the mirror for who has been delaying sending this bill to committee where the individual components can be debated.

The bill contains some important improvements for the security of Canada's transportation system. The amendments to the Aeronautics Act are designed to clarify and update existing aviation security authorities.

The security of the public is the concern of all members of the House. We have to demonstrate to the Canadian public that we share in that earnestly and that we are not here to debate this ad nauseam while many issues go unresolved because we cannot agree. That is unfair to the Canadian public. I plead with my colleagues on all sides of the House to work together on this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-17, the public safety act.

Specifically I would like to address section 4.82 which would amend the Aeronautics Act. This is an improvement over an earlier proposal in Bill C-55 because it addresses a number of concerns, not only of parliamentarians and people in the House, but also the Privacy Commissioner.

At the same time it is a very important provision for public safety. It will give our law enforcement and security agencies an effective and timely tool to improve transportation security and safety for all Canadians. How will it do this? It will require airlines, which already collect personal information about passengers, to share it when requested with specifically designated RCMP and CSIS officers.

Let me assure the House that designated officers cannot use the information for unrestricted purposes. Their use will be strictly limited to the purposes of transportation, security and counterterrorism. This makes sense because the RCMP requires information about passengers to deliver an effective air carrier protection program.

In practical terms the RCMP needs to know if there are potentially dangerous passengers on flights so that it can assign aircraft protective officers to cover them. Likewise, CSIS needs the information to identify known suspected terrorists before they board a plane. I do not think it would be in the interests of Canadians to deny the RCMP and CSIS access to this information if it could avert a terrorist incident or protect Canadians from potential harm.

We have removed the identification of persons subject to outstanding warrants as an authorized primary purpose for obtaining passenger information as it was set out in Bill C-55. However during the course of analyzing passenger information to check for terrorists and other high risk persons, the RCMP would be able to notify the local police if they identified a fugitive wanted for a serious crime such as murder.

This change specifically responds to concerns raised by hon. members and the Privacy Commissioner that accessing air passenger lists to identify persons with outstanding warrants for serious offences goes beyond the counterterrorism intent of the bill.

In keeping with public expectations, the RCMP would still be able to take action in the interests of public safety. If the RCMP happened to identify a dangerous wanted criminal or terrorist, it would then be able to notify the local police so it could be apprehended before they could harm someone else. The public would not expect anything less from the RCMP.

We must not lose sight of the fact that an arrest warrant is essentially an order that is issued in situations where the justice or the court believes it is necessary in the public interest to do so. What is more, it commands peace officers to arrest the person and to bring him or her before the justice or the court to be dealt with according to law. Without this provision we would be placing RCMP members in a very difficult position by preventing them from assisting in the execution of serious warrants they may discover in the context of analyzing passenger data for transportation security purposes.

I would like to take this moment to assure hon. members of the House that this authority would in no way give the RCMP blanket permission to arrest and detain just anyone. Before any passenger could be arrested, the RCMP and any other police force for that matter would have to take reasonable steps to positively identify the person named in the warrant.

That brings me to the second change, which is to narrow the types of offences for which warrants can be executed. Only warrants for offences which are punishable by five years or more in prison and which are identified and specified in a schedule to be listed in a regulation will be subject to disclosure.

Finally, the hallmark of Canada's approach to national security is collaboration among departments and agencies at the federal and provincial level, industry, parliamentarians, citizens rights groups and in the international community, especially the United States. The joint resolve of these stakeholders is one of the reasons why Canada remains one of the safest countries in the world in which to live.

To ensure that air carriers have the authority to collect and use information about individuals obtained from the government and to search for information about them for specific purposes, a consequential amendment to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, PIPEDA, is proposed. This amendment would ensure the effectiveness of the data sharing regime proposed by Bill C-17.

The PIPEDA was developed to ensure that privacy and enable law enforcement agencies to protect the safety of Canadians and support a competitive and innovative marketplace. This same balanced approach has led to this amendment which would maintain the overall integrity then of intelligence activities in a changed security environment.

The amendment to section 4.82 needs to take into account Canadians' privacy rights as well as their protection against terrorism. That is why this proposal makes very strict privacy safeguards and as such is well worth considering.

All passenger information would have to be destroyed within seven days unless it was reasonably required for the restrictive purposes of transportation security or the investigation of terrorist threats. When we consider there are thousands of flights a day in Canada, it makes good sense then to give the RCMP and CSIS the time they need to analyze passenger information they have accessed before planes actually depart.

To ensure accountability and transparency, written records would have to be kept then to justify intentional disclosure of any passenger information. This would enable review agencies such as the Security Intelligence Review Committee, the Inspector General for CSIS or the Privacy Commissioner to readily examine records for compliance with the law. The RCMP and CSIS would each be required to conduct an annual review of information retained by designated officers. If retention could no longer be justified, the information would have to be destroyed.

In closing, section 4.82 is what Canadians want and I believe that sincerely. It will ensure that law enforcement and national security agencies can improve transportation and national security and work effectively with our international partners. It will do this while maintaining privacy rights which as all members of the House know are also very important.

We have taken into account concerns expressed about proposals in the previous legislation. We have listened and we believe we have struck the right balance. After all, I believe Canadians want and expect from parliamentarians and those of us in the House to strike the right balance when it comes to privacy and the rights of Canadians and also security and safety for all Canadians.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say a few words on Bill C-17. Many of my colleagues from all the parties here on this side have expressed concern that Bill C-17 is very much like the old Bill C-55, whereby the changes that we hoped to see in the new bill really are not there. There have been some cosmetic changes made, with some changes in time differentials and whatever, but generally speaking in regard to the effect Bill C-17 will have on the privacy of Canadians, there are still a lot of the same concerns that were raised before.

The bill is about one thing and one thing only. It has nothing to do with the threats of attacks against our country. No, the bill is about power. More specifically, the bill is another attempt by the Liberal government to increase the powers of the executive and individual cabinet ministers.

As with its predecessor, the bill concentrates too much power with too few people. Many of us are very concerned when we look at the people in whose hands this power is going to be placed. We have seen demonstrations of how inadequate a number of the ministers have been over the last few years and, more specifically, certainly over the last few months.

When we look at the infighting that is going on within their own party and when we think that these very few people are going to be able to control in their own hands, individually, what goes on in relation to the security of the country, it makes one very nervous.

In so doing, it undermines the authority of this place and the electorate that put us here to represent its views and protect its fundamental rights and freedoms. The power play in relation to security and major decisions affecting our country should lie right here within these hallowed halls, in decisions made generally by the people elected to make such decisions and not concentrated in the hands of a few ministers. It also undermines the legitimate authority and constitutionally enshrined jurisdiction of other levels of government. As my colleague from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough stated originally when he spoke to the bill, this bill undermines the very foundation of the country, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the division of powers defined by Canada's Constitution Act.

The one thing that the governing Liberals have failed to do is explain why the bill is actually needed. They failed to do so in the spring and they have still failed to demonstrate to Canadians this time around why such a bill, which threatens the freedoms and civil liberties of Canadians, is required when this country already has adequate legislation on the books in the form of the Emergencies Act.

It is easy for the government to hide behind the threat of terror and international attacks on our peace and security so that it can hoodwink Canadians into believing that such legislation is required. However, if the government were serious about protecting Canadians from such threats, it would invest more in our military instead of watching it dwindle to under 60,000 troops at a time when we need them the most, troops who do not have adequate equipment. Nor are they compensated properly for the fine work they do for their country. If the government were truly serious about security, it would reinvest in our military and make it the proud institution that it used to be.

While the government played politics and cancelled the contract to replace the Sea Kings, our personnel were losing their lives. The first of the Progressive Conservative helicopters would have been delivered already if it were not for the petty politics of the Liberal government. However, millions of dollars and nearly 10 years later, our personnel still risk their lives each time they set foot in one of those beaters. Meanwhile, the government is still looking for a good deal. This is nothing short of irresponsible.

The fact that the current Prime Minister will likely leave office without resolving the Sea King problem shows where the government puts our security on its priority list: at the bottom. What kind of legacy is that? Helicopters that will not fly, military pants that will not stay up, and submarines that will not float. That is the Liberal vision of our military and our security, and what are the Liberals going to do instead of addressing the real concerns of the country and putting money where money is really needed?

They are going to put decision making powers into the hands of ministers. Every day we are getting some hint, mainly through the press, of the security threat to the country. The government cannot answer a question in the House because it does not discuss these things publicly. It does not want anybody to know what is going on. The problem of course, that we fully understand, is that the ministers involved do not know what is going on and that is why they cannot answer the questions. If that is the way they handle such a serious situation we can imagine these same people having, within their hands, the ability to make major decisions as they relate to the security of the country and the privacy of citizens to live there.

The bill is really about something that is high on the Liberal agenda. It is not security but more power. The government has failed to put the proper resources into the military and other agencies of Canadian security. Instead it has come up with this bill that increases the power of cabinet ministers and trounces the authority of Parliament.

When we talk about putting money where money is needed, a few nights ago we had a debate on the Coast Guard or perhaps we should say the lack thereof. Resources to the Coast Guard have diminished over the years and the tremendous work that our Coast Guard has done around the coasts of this country has been diminished.

The security that exists at airports and at the borders of the country may be termed adequate. If one gets on a plane we know what type of security measures one goes through. If people drive across the border into Canada we know the people and their cars are thoroughly searched. However if people have any kind of mechanism that floats, from a raft, to a yacht, to an ocean liner, they can land in about 70% of this country and nobody even knows they are coming.

The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans who is responsible for the Coast Guard delighted the other night in telling us that the government has strengthened up measures because when boats are coming into our waters they now have to give us 96 hours advance notice rather than the 24 hours which was required originally.

How often have we heard of drug pushers or terrorists calling ahead to get reservations in this country? We know they do not call ahead. If we know of all the places in the country that are not covered by radar, certainly we must realize that they also know.

Given that Canada already has the Emergencies Act, why is the bill necessary? The government should not be trying to suspend our freedom and constitutional rights. It should be protecting them. The Government of Canada, which already has too much power, should not be seeking more tools to infringe on the rights of Canadians when legislation already exists.

Public Safety Act, 2002

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-17, the public safety act.

The bill, which was introduced in the House last Thursday, is an improved package of public safety initiatives in support of the government's anti-terrorism plan.

The proposed public safety act 2002 contains key provisions that will increase the Government of Canada's capacity to prevent terrorist attacks, protect Canadians and respond swiftly should a significant threat arise.

The proposed public safety act replaces the old Bill C-55 which was introduced this past spring but died on the order paper when Parliament prorogued in September. The proposed act retains key principles of Bill C-55 and notably would amend two acts that fall within the responsibilities of the Minister of Natural Resources: the National Energy Board Act and the Explosives Act. Like my colleague, I will be speaking to the technical aspects of the proposed legislation.

As hon. members will recall, the federal Explosives Act regulates the importation, manufacture, storage and sale of commercial explosives along with aspects of their transportation. Natural Resources Canada's, NRCan, primary mandate is to ensure the health and safety of workers in the industry and the health and safety of the general public.

The proposed amendments to the Explosives Act are the same as the amendments set out in Bill C-55 and are aimed at protecting Canada's explosives supply from criminal and terrorist interest. Proposed are: new measures to control the acquisition and possession of explosives by potential criminal or terrorist interests; to track the consumer sale of components of explosives, such as ammonium nitrate, which was mentioned by my colleague; and to introduce export and in-transit permit requirements to complement the current import permit regime.

This will assist in Canada's eventual ratification of the Organization of American States' inter-American convention against the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives and other related materials in the OAS convention, which was signed in November 1997.

I would now like to take the opportunity to clear up some misconceptions which we have heard in the House about the proposed amendments to the Explosives Act during second reading debate of the previous bill in the last session, Bill C-55.

The reason that inexplosive ammunition components--inexplosive means non-explosive components of ammunition such as cartridge cases and bullets--are proposed to be defined and included for control under the Explosives Act is that the OAS convention captures such components in its definition of ammunition. In addition, to complete rounds of ammunition, the OAS definition also includes the propellant powder, primer, cartridge case and projectile.

The OAS regime is based on a system of import, export and in-transit licences aimed at protecting the shipment of firearms, ammunition, explosives and other related materials within the Americas from loss or diversion to criminal or terrorist interests.

This is already a known problem in some Central and South American states. For that reason, the Organization of American States, the OAS, felt it necessary for the convention to address this issue on an America-wide basis. Once the proposed amendments to the Explosives Act are enacted, Canadian importers of small arms ammunition will need to amend their existing explosives importation permits to include cartridge cases and projectiles.

There is no intention to ban, severely control or impose any further restrictions on domestic commerce if the goods were lawfully manufactured or imported.

The proposed controls for curbing illicit manufacture and trafficking of explosives are not intended to burden lawful shooting activities.

While ammunition propellant, such as smokeless powder, will continue to be defined and regulated as an explosive under the Explosives Act, no additional domestic requirements for the shipment, storage and possession of lawfully imported or manufactured cartridge cases and projectiles are intended. These proposed amendments will not adversely impact lawful shooting activities in Canada.

I would now like to turn my attention to the proposed amendments to the National Energy Board Act contained in part 14 of Bill C-17. This is the other aspect of NRCan's responsibilities in these matters.

Given the events of September 11, 2001, the Government of Canada needs to clearly define the powers of the National Energy Board with respect to security. I would like to make it clear that safety and security are related but they are not the same thing.

The National Energy Board currently has the mandate to regulate safety of interprovincial and international pipelines and international power lines. The amendments to the National Energy Board Act would provide the board a clear statutory basis for regulating the security of energy infrastructure under its jurisdiction.

The board's authority to regulate security would only apply to those pipelines and facilities that fall under federal jurisdiction. Production, treatment, refining, storage and internal distribution clearly fall under provincial jurisdiction. The proposed amendments do not apply to these facilities.

The amendments proposed to the National Energy Board Act are the same as the amendments set out in the old bill, Bill C-55, which lapsed. They would expand the National Energy Board's mandate to regulate security of installations and would provide the NEB with a clear statutory mandate to: order a pipeline company or certificate holder for an international power line to take measures to ensure the security of the pipeline or the power line; to make regulations respecting security measures; to keep information relating to security confidential in its orders or proceedings; to provide advice to the Minister of Natural Resources on issues related to security of pipelines and international power lines; and, finally, to waive the publication requirements for applications to export electricity or to construct international power lines if there is a critical shortage of electricity.

The board's inspectors would be given additional authority to make orders with respect to security matters. The ability of the board to keep sensitive industry security information confidential is essential to the exercise of regulatory responsibilities for security. The amendments therefore contain a provision enabling the board to take measures to protect information in its proceedings or in any order.

There are two tests for exercising that authority. These matters, as in other areas of security, are a matter of balance. It is essential for the board to maintain confidentiality with regard to security measures.

In conclusion, the amendments to the National Energy Board Act and to the Explosives Act contained in Bill C-17 would contribute to the safety and well-being of Canadians and provide us with better tools to address and better protect ourselves from terrorism.

[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.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to add a few points with regard to Bill C-17, the public safety act.

As the House knows, the proposed public safety act replaces Bill C-55 which was introduced on April 29, 2002. The proposed act contains a number of provisions and I would like to comment very briefly on one aspect.

The bill contains provisions whereby it would enhance Canada's secure environment for air travel. It would provide for data sharing between air carriers and federal departments and agencies. There are other provisions to deal with things like hoaxes, to establish tighter controls over explosives and hazardous substances, to help identify and prevent harmful, unauthorized use or interference with computer systems, and to deter the proliferation of biological weapons. That outlines the flavour of the bill.

I want to provide a little insight into the issue of anti-terrorism and the need for us to ensure that we are well prepared in all aspects to protect Canadians, our assets and our dear country from the threat of terrorism.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Transport, I had the opportunity to travel with the committee to Washington last spring to visit with our U.S. counterparts.

I was not aware of how deeply September 11 had touched the American people. I recall one meeting in which a senior official in the transport and anti-terrorism area of the United States government was speaking to us about some of the arrangements that the United States had made. When he got to the point where he referred specifically to September 11, he paused and I could see that he was overcome by emotion. The room went quiet. It was terribly apparent to me that September 11 was a much more serious and deeper wound to the American people than we could ever imagine.

Some have argued that the United States, being the most powerful country in the world and being involved in virtually all aspects of anti-terrorism and conflict around the world and being called upon to play a lead role so many times, will become the target of terrorism. I reject the notion that somehow those who deal with the peace and security of our globe should be targeted because they are trying to alleviate the pressures around our globe which create the environment in which terrorism might thrive.

September 11 is a proxy for all nations of peace to review and look at their own circumstances to determine what they can do to safeguard their people and their countries.

When the transport committee started to look at the security arrangements at our airports, we visited some of our larger airports to look at the provisions that had been in place and what was being planned. Even with regard to an airport such as Pearson International where new construction was going on, this was all planned in advance of September 11. How that has changed since. The initiatives of the government on anti-terrorism measures in the last round have influenced the development and construction of the new terminal at Pearson airport to ensure safety and security to a greater extent than was anticipated prior to September 11.

We also found that there were many other deficiencies, even down to things like checking baggage. The equipment that is necessary to check every piece of baggage going into the hold of an aircraft is sophisticated. It is large. It has to be staffed by properly trained people. We found out that there was not enough equipment in existence to put in our airports, so we were already starting from a deficit in terms of having the technology available to install in airports.

What was worse when we visited with our U.S. counterparts was we found that in their program to get this kind of equipment in, they found that much of the equipment was still in the wrappers in airports. It had not been unpacked. It still had not been installed. People still had not been trained.

It takes time to do these things. A lot of the coordination had not been done. It was very difficult to get many of the airports up to the level that everybody working on travel safety and security would certainly want to put in place. It was fairly clear that the intent and the requirements were well known but the ability to implement them was not.

Now there is a different dimension to the whole aspect of anti-terrorism. There has been a new communiqué issues, presumably by al-Qaeda, presumably by the world famous terrorist, Osama bin Laden. These latest pronouncements have escalated the level of concern and probably should. There are linkages to the tragedy in a Moscow theatre, the bombing in Bali and the numerous casualties there, the Chechen conflict. This incident and those people have now linked themselves to all the terrorist activities which are happening literally around the world. We have heard anecdotal comments about sleeping cells all around the world, even in Canada.

Those are the kinds of things we cannot discount. As much as we would like to say that it is not so and that we are a safe country, we are a country of riches, we are a country next to the United States of America. We have a substantial trade relationship with the Americans in a number of areas, including hydro which is a very important commodity for Canada in terms of export and for the U.S. in terms of its importation for its needs. These are areas which some have targeted as possible places in which terrorist activities may occur.

Canada is vulnerable, as is every industrialized western nation. They are vulnerable to what terrorists might do.

It is fair to say that we could not possibly insulate ourselves or protect ourselves 100% from any terrorist threat. However our role as parliamentarians is to ensure that we pass legislation which enables our country to protect itself to the greatest extent possible in the areas of highest risk.

Bill C-17 provides many of the tools that we will need to continue to build the response mechanisms that we need to reduce terrorist risk. I stress that this is almost more prevention in that it is providing the tools so that we can anticipate and detect activity which may turn out ultimately to be a viable risk to the safety and security of Canada.

For those reasons I am pleased to lend my support to the bill. It is an important bill. I understand that numerous concerns have been raised by Canadians with regard to personal privacy and related matters. Those are valid points. We as legislators will have to determine the greatest extent to which we can balance the need for personal privacy with the need for us to protect Canada.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is appropriate to begin by reminding the House what led to today's debate on Bill C-17. This bill has been before us for a long time. It previously had different titles. It was originally known as Bill C-55, before becoming Bill C-42. It is now before us as Bill C-17. This legislation was changed and improved somewhat to meet the major concerns of the public, the main stakeholders and the opposition in recent years.

The bill was significantly amended as regards designated military zones. We can say—as my colleagues have done, and it is only normal to do so without being too boastful—that it is a victory for the opposition, a victory for individual rights over security. In this regard, the fact that this legislation has been tightened up the way it has is a victory for democracy and for the public.

During the week of recess, we went back to our respective ridings. People often ask us “What exactly is the role of the opposition?” Bill C-17 provides a good example of the role of the opposition. I do not agree with the former Minister of Finance who said that the opposition does not make solid suggestions to the House. An example of a solid suggestion that we made to the government is when we said “Listen, you are probably going a little too far with these designated military zones”. We called the government to order.

This bill, like the young offenders legislation and other bills that I could mention, provides an example of the role of an informed opposition. It provides an example of how it helps correct proposed measures. At no time have Bloc Quebecois members, and members of the other opposition parties, said “We are opposed to the bill, whether it is Bill C-55 or Bill C-42”. However, we said “Even though we agree with the idea of providing greater security for the general public, individual and civil rights must not be violated for the benefit of collective security. Let us be cautious in this regard”. We said it time and again.

People ask “What point is there to a debate, if there is no vote immediately afterward? Are these just empty debates?” We have, however, been heeded by someone somewhere. Between the two sessions there have been some positive changes made which enable us to say that this bill is an improvement. We are therefore encouraged to continue to make improvements. We are all in agreement with the principle of ensuring people's safety. As I have said, however, their rights must not be sacrificed in the process.

The Bloc Quebecois is therefore very pleased with the amendment relating to military security zones, namely that they have been done away with. On the other hand, we are still wary. We are saying to the government and the stakeholders “Heed us as you did for the military security zones. We feel some improvements still need to be made if this bill is to be the object of consensus. Consensus is the goal of everyone in this House”.

There are still problems, however, one of them concerning interim orders. Here again we have evidence of how the opposition can bring about constructive improvements to a bill, if only through what is said here in the House. Let us compare the three bills we have had presented to us concerning these interim measures: Bills C-42, C-55 and C-17. Initially, we were vehemently opposed to C-42 and C-55 as far as military zones and interim orders were concerned.

What did Bill C-42 have to say about these interim orders? The interim order was made by a minister, or in certain cases by departmental officials. It ceased to be in effect after 90 days, unless ratified by the governor in council. In other words, these were 90-day interim orders.

We said “This is terrible; it is wrong; it is dangerous. It goes beyond common senses to give so much power with respect to interim orders”. If memory serves, the government members' reaction at that time was to label us irresponsible, to tell us “These responsibilities are justified. We are entitled to have 90-day interim orders”. They listened to us, nevertheless.

When Bill C-55 was introduced, the period was reduced from 90 to 45 days, “unless it is approved by the Governor in Council”. At least, the government listened to us and reduced the period to 45 days. Still, the timeframe was felt to be unreasonable and, as a result, in Bill C-17, it was further reduced to 14 days. It went all the way from 90 days to 14 days.

To those who ask what good the opposition and its speeches are, I say that we have the ability to influence the government and bring it to make changes when it goes too far—in negotiating, one often asks for more just to get what is reasonable—and 14 days is probably more reasonable.

With regard to the introduction in Parliament of a bill like this one and the important role played by parliamentarians, members should know that there were no provisions for the tabling of interim orders in Parliament. At no time could the people's representatives have voted on or examined the orders, had Bill C-42 been passed.

In Bill C-55, the provision read “within 15 days after it has been made”. Under Bill C-55, the timeframe was 15 days from the time an interim order was tabled, and this timeframe has been maintained.

Naturally, we see that substantial improvements have been made from the initial version of the bill. However, the main problem, the lack of a preliminary review period to ensure compliance with the charter and enabling legislation, remains.

While welcoming improvements with respect to the powers of the various ministers and officials in connection with interim orders, there is a more serious problem with the new legislation before us—we are not alone to say so—and it concerns the exchange of information.

In this respect, if time permits, I would like to read two excerpts from the release by the privacy commissioner:

This same provision has now been reintroduced, with only minimal and unsatisfactory change, in the replacement legislation, Bill C-17.

He is talking about the exchange of information. And he adds:

But 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.

I would like to point out to the President of the Treasury Board that the Privacy Commissioner does not respect the Official Languages Act, as far as I am concerned, or at least the spirit of the act, because he seems to have problems with our language, unlike the Commissioner of Official Languages and the Auditor General, both of whom respect the act and the spirit of the act. However, I am sure that the President of the Treasury Board was aware of this. Just a quick aside.

The Privacy Commissioner found other problems and when Bill C-42 was introduced, he was quick to voice his concerns about the broad powers that were being given to CSIS and the RCMP to obtain information on matters unrelated to security, terrorism or the protection of citizens. With these new powers, they would be able to arrest other criminals here and there, based on information they received. There was a great deal of talk about this, and “Big Brother” was what we saw.

To conclude, this bill is very interesting. It proves that it is possible to improve upon a bill. It also proves that the opposition, when confronted with a bill as important to public safety as this one is, can make real and specific proposals to improve it, calling on the government and stakeholders, so that everyone can support it.

However, at this time, we in the Bloc Quebecois still cannot support this bill because of the interim orders but, more importantly, because of the sharing of information, which, as the Privacy Commissioner has said, goes beyond the powers of this government.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-17 now before the House replaces Bill C-55. In fact, it is a watered down version of the previous bill. The Bloc Quebecois has been very critical of some elements of this bill.

The bill is the third attempt by the government to legislate in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. It seems that the government has agreed with some of the criticism, since it has toned down its security bill. I really appreciated the very insightful statement made by the Minister of Transport, who is sponsoring the bill. He told reporters that he listened to the concerns of members of Parliament and received very good advice.

He just forgot to mention the remarkable contribution of the Bloc Quebecois.

However, there are still some left-over issues from the previous bill, namely privacy issues because of the information to be gathered by the airlines. I would like to quote the Privacy Commissioner, George Radwanski, who said:

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

Mr. Radwanski and his colleagues are right, because in ensuring the security of their citizens, governments should be careful not to violate their fundamental rights.

In its previous version, Bill C-17 allowed RCMP and Canadian Security Intelligence Service officers to scrutinize list of passengers entering Canada, in order to find individuals sought by the state for a crime punishable by a five-year jail sentence. This scrutiny would have allowed the police to arrest individuals as soon as they disembarked from a plane. This provision is not completely withdrawn from the present bill, but it will not be as systematic as initially planned. Still, the RCMP and CSIS will be able to investigate airlines' passenger lists.

What will be the consequences of the exchange of information between the RCMP and CSIS?

Last May 6, the Privacy Commissioner publicly released a letter in which he explained his concerns about previous Bill C-55 allowing the RCMP and CSIS to obtain information. He expressed concerns about various provisions, including the use of personal information.

There were problems with several provisions. This was the case with the definition of warrant, the provision allowing the RCMP to obtain information in order to find individuals subject to arrest warrants, and the provision allowing the RCMP to convey information on people subject to an arrest warrant. The commissioner recommended 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. 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.

What is more, the government has tightened up the definition of warrant. In the previous version, it might be 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 stipulating exactly what crimes are involved.

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. Neither of these changes was made.

As a result, on November 1, 2002, Privacy Commissioner George Radwanski issued a press release in which he described the changes as follows:

—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 goes on to say:

But 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.

This is but one of the aspects of the bill that remain problematic.

We in the Bloc Quebecois believe that the amendments introduced by the government in connection with the power of the RCMP and CSIS to gather information on air passengers are still far too broad. Although the proposed amendments may appear to be plugging some of the loopholes, the problems raised by the Privacy Commissioner remain.

We are therefore fielding the ball thrown out by the Privacy Commissioner and are opposing these new broadened police powers.

We must not forget that the new databank that the RCMP and CSIS will have the authority to create will be in addition to the new databank created by the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, also condemned by the Privacy Commissioner.

Bill C-17, the Public Safety Act, 2002, clearly represents a big step back by the Liberal government, which acted much too precipitously following the events of September 11. It acted too quickly.

The new version demonstrates clearly that our criticisms were reasonable and founded. Even after the changes made, this bill remains unacceptable and is described by the Privacy Commissioner as an unsatisfactory version.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Canadian Alliance, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to make a few comments on the amendments, known as Bill C-17, to the Explosives Act.

My remarks will be in two parts. The first part will deal primarily with the inexplosive ammunition component that is in Bill C-17. No matter how many times the government renumbers and reintroduces this bill, the proposed amendments to the Explosives Act do not change and consequently we continue to oppose them. Our rationale for opposing these amendments does not change either. I wish the government would listen but nothing has changed.

The federal government is using the September 11 terrorist attack as an excuse for continuing its anti-gun, anti-hunting, anti-farmer, anti-sports shooter, anti-firearms collector, anti-historical re-enactor, anti-licensed firearms and ammunitions dealer, anti-guides and outfitters, and anti-aboriginal hunting rights agenda. These are the honest, law-abiding, taxpaying Canadians that the Liberals have targeted with these 10 pages of proposed Explosives Act amendments.

These amendments were so urgent that the Liberals have waited five years to bring them before Parliament. it was on November 14, 1997, that former deputy prime minister, Herb Gray, signed the Organization of American States inter-American convention against the illicit manufacturing and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives and other related materials in Washington, D.C. If anyone needs any more proof of the government's anti-gun agenda, former deputy prime minister Herb Gray, when he signed the OAS convention in Washington in 1997, said:

This could be the start of a global movement that would spur the development of an instrument to ban firearms worldwide that would be similar to our land-mines initiative.

That comes from the Montreal Gazette of November 15, 1997, under the heading “Canada signs deal to curb illegal sales of guns”.

The government already has control over the explosive part of bullets and shells, namely gunpowder. What possible public safety, anti-terrorism objective can be achieved by controlling parts of ammunition that cannot go anywhere without the gunpowder? There is none. These proposed amendments to control inexplosive ammunition components are plain and simple government harassment of the tens of thousands of responsible firearms owners who happen to load their own bullets and shells for their own legal recreation and sport.

Terrorists and their deadly operations would remain unaffected and undeterred by these amendments. Explosives are easily obtained by terrorists through criminal means and just as easily manufactured with everyday materials that are available in most food and hardware stores.

The only part of the bill that is any good at all is the increased penalties for the criminal use of explosives. The trouble with these sections is that they are most likely going to hit the wrong target by potentially criminalizing tens of thousands of law-abiding citizens who load their own ammunition for their legal pastimes and sports. Instead of writing the law the way the government intended, the government assures all concerned:

The people responsible for applying the amended act do not think that the proposed measures will interfere with supplies for hunters and people who manufacture their own agenda.

If that is what the government means, then why does the government not say who these laws are intended for and exempt everyone else? It does not do that. The danger of these amendments was pointed out in a Library of Parliament research paper prepared on January 18, 2002. The lawyers reported:

Those who presently make their own ammunition are already regulated under the Explosives Act since an explosive (gunpowder) is a regulated product. Thus, licences are currently required, for example, to import explosives. Clause 36 would replace section 9 of the current Explosives Act by requiring a permit to import, to export and to transport in transit through Canada not only for explosives but also for inexplosive ammunition components.

That is what I so strongly object to.

Consequently, law-abiding citizens who manufacture their own ammunition could end up being charged with the new offences proposed in these amendments, offences that call for fines of up to $500,000, or half a million dollars, and imprisonment for up to five years in jail if someone has these inexplosive components. Offences that are targeting law-abiding Canadians in this act include: acquiring, possessing, selling, offering for sale, transporting or delivering any illicit inexplosive ammunition component and making or manufacturing any explosive from an illicitly trafficked inexplosive ammunition component.

The government has not told us how it thinks anyone can make an explosive from an inexplosive ammunition component. The definition in the act states:

“inexplosive ammunition component” means any cartridge case or bullet, or any projectile that is used in a firearm as defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code.

Even the government's own definition clearly demonstrates that no one could possibly make an explosive out of an “inexplosive ammunition component”.

Before we proceed any further with these amendments, Parliament needs to hear testimony in committee from firearms and explosives experts. Maybe if the government had consulted with the firearms community it might have avoided another showdown with law-abiding gun owners in this country. Obviously the government has not learned any lessons from the colossal failure of Bill C-68, the firearms registry bill.

I want to read into the record today the words of a well-known firearms expert. Dave Tomlinson has been acknowledged by dozens of courts in Canada as an expert witness on firearms and firearms law. Here is what Mr. Tomlinson said after reading the proposed “inexplosive ammunition component” amendments in Bill C-17:

It will be a criminal offence to take an empty cartridge case or a warped and twisted fired bullet picked up at a shooting range into or out of Canada. Inadvertent presence of one or more of those items--in quantities of one inert empty cartridge case or one inert and unusable bullet--in the trunk of your car or the back of your pickup truck will be grounds for criminal prosecution. It will probably also be grounds for confiscation of your vehicle, and giving you a criminal record. How does that enhance homeland security? Public safety? World peace? How does it create any problem for any criminal engaged in any criminal activity? Criminals are not handloaders. If they want ammunition, they buy it from smugglers--who import whole cartridges, because that is what their criminal customers want. This is a typical example of the muddleheadedness of the Liberals.

At the appropriate time during this debate I would like to move amendments to remove all of these references to the “inexplosive ammunition component” from the proposed amendments to the Explosives Act, and we will do that.

I would like to conclude this part of my speech by saying that the government has wasted a lot of money on the gun registry and now it is going to begin another huge paper-shuffling exercise. It is going to be another huge waste of money.

The last time, the government said that if we had a gun registry we would reduce the criminal use of guns and prevent smuggling. That is exactly the opposite of what is happening. The smuggling is increasing and the criminal use of firearms is increasing.

Would it not make a lot more sense to target the terrorists and to spend the money gathering intelligence about their activities rather than hassling law-abiding citizens? Terrorists do not use inexplosives, empty cartridges, in their activities. The people the government will spend time and resources on will be law-abiding people. This money could be spent much more profitably by improving public security rather than regulating inexplosive components.

I now would like to go on to the second part of my speech, which is on a completely different topic. I would like to read into the record a news release put out by the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, George Radwanski. He released this statement a couple of weeks ago.

Before I begin reading it, I would remind everyone listening that this gentleman was appointed by the Liberal Prime Minister. He is a former editor-in-chief of The Toronto Star , so he is not exactly a card-carrying Alliance member. He said:

Since last May, I have expressed extremely grave concerns about one provision of what was then Bill C-55, the federal Government’s Public Safety Act. This same provision has now been reintroduced, with only minimal and unsatisfactory change, in the replacement legislation, Bill C-17.

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.

I have raised no objection to the primary purpose of this provision, which is to enable the RCMP and CSIS to use this passenger information for anti-terrorist “transportation security” and “national security” screening. But 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.

The implications of this are extraordinarily far-reaching.

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.

I am prepared, with some reluctance, to accept this as an exceptional measure that can be justified, in the wake of September 11, for the limited and specific purposes of aviation security and national security against terrorism. But I can find no reason why the use of this de facto self-identification to the police should be extended to searching for individuals who are of interest to the state because they are the subject of warrants for Criminal Code offences unrelated to terrorism. That has the same effect as requiring us to notify the police every time we travel, so that they can check whether we are wanted for something.

If the police were able to carry out their regular Criminal Code law enforcement duties without this new power before September 11, they should likewise be able to do so now. The events of September 11 were a great tragedy and a great crime; they should not be manipulated into becoming an opportunity--an opportunity to expand privacy-invasive police powers for purposes that have nothing to do with anti-terrorism.

If we accept the principle that air travellers within Canada can in effect be forced by law to identify themselves to police for scrutiny against lists of wanted suspects, then there is nothing to prevent the same logic from being applied in future to other modes of transportation. Particularly since this provision might well discourage wanted individuals from travelling by air, why not extend the same scrutiny to train travellers, bus passengers or anyone renting a car? Indeed, the precedent set by this provision could ultimately open the door to practices similar to those that exist in societies where police routinely board trains, establish roadblocks or stop people on the street to check identification papers in search of anyone of interest to the state.

The place to draw the line in protecting the fundamental human right of privacy is at the very outset, at the first unjustifiable intrusion. In this instance, that means amending the bill to remove all reference to warrants and thus limit the police to matching passenger information against anti-terrorism and national security databases.

The concerns that I have raised in this matter since last spring have been publicly endorsed by the Information and Privacy Commissioner of British Columbia and the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario; by members of every party in the House of Commons, notably including a member of the government's own Liberal caucus who is an internationally recognized expert on human rights, [the member for Mount Royal]; and by editorials and newspapers, including the Toronto Star, the Globe and Mail, the Vancouver Sun, the Vancouver Province, the Calgary Herald and the Edmonton Journal.

These concerns are now being ignored by the government.

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--since the RCMP would remain empowered to match this information against a database of persons wanted on warrants and to use such matches to bring about arrests. It insults the intelligence of Canadians to suggest, as the Government does in its press release accompanying the bill, that the RCMP may “incidentally” come upon individuals wanted on Criminal Code warrants--if the police are to match names of passengers against a database of individuals wanted on Criminal Code warrants, there can be nothing “incidental” about finding them.

Since the original Bill C-55 was introduced, I have used every means at my disposal to make the crucially important privacy issues that are at stake known and understood by all the Ministers and top Government officials who are involved in this matter. I regret that I have not, to date, been successful in obtaining an appropriate response from them, though I will certainly continue my efforts. It is now up to Parliament to explain to these people that privacy is a fundamental human right of Canadians that must be respected, rather than treated with the apparent indifference that the Government is showing.

That is the end of a very lengthy quotation. I would hope that the government would take to heart the comments of the privacy commissioner, who is here to serve all Canadians through Parliament.

I will conclude with one question. The government must answer this question before it proceeds. Why is it ignoring the privacy commissioner's comments? Why? I would like to have an answer from the government.

Also, on the first part of my speech, why is it not removing wholly the number of references to inexplosive components in the firearms act?

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for informing me, in your great wisdom, of the speaking time I have left. Naturally, I will endeavour to use this time appropriately. When I spoke on Bill C-17, I pointed out that this was an improved version of the bill put before us last spring, the public safety bill, Bill C-55.

At the time that bill was introduced, I rose to express great concern about, among other things, controlled access military zones, now referred to as military security zones, as defined in Bill C-42.

This was a very important point. I should remind hon. members that the concept of controlled access military zones, at the time, made it possible for the government to establish protected military zones, which could cover any area where there are military facilities. This could lead to abuse. At the time, I gave the very specific example of Quebec City as a potential controlled access military zone. It would have been very difficult to do anything in Quebec City if there had been problems of terrorism.

The other point I raised at the time concerned the interim orders. The new bill before us today also contains provisions on interim orders. We were primarily concerned about the deadlines for these orders and the way they could be made, the fact that the decision to make interim orders could be made by an individual, either the minister or an official.

A problem remains concerning interim orders, and I will come back to that. I am talking about the lack of preliminary compliance audits. I will address this issue later, to explain why we oppose the new version of the bill, Bill C-17, before us today and dealing with interim orders.

We also strongly emphasized another point: the exchange of information. In this respect, the amendments proposed to the previous bill fall far short of what is needed. A great deal of information can still be exchanged and, as far as I am concerned, too much control and power is given to the RCMP and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. I will come back to that also. The privacy commissioner commented on this last spring. He is saying pretty much the same thing now, stating that the provisions do not represent the proper balance between safety and security, and privacy.

So, I said in the first part of my remarks, that we would vote against the bill in its present form. We will do so for reasons that are essentially the same as those mentioned last spring, because, in our opinion, the changes made to the bill are clearly insufficient.

More specifically, on the subject of military security zones, a recent news release issued by the Department of Transport indicated the following:

The government concluded that it needed to take a more measured approach and re-engineer these provisions in a way that achieves a better balance between the public interest and the ongoing legitimate security needs of Canadian Forces and visiting forces in Canada. The government recognizes the need to deal with these security concerns as a matter of some urgency. As a result, it has decided to establish, through Order-in-Council, controlled access zones in Halifax, Esquimalt and Nanoose Bay harbours.

The same news release, which was issued when the bill was introduced, also said:

These controlled access zones will be much narrower in scope than the earlier provisions and will apply only to the three naval ports in question, although other such zones could be considered on a case-by-case basis, should the security situation dictate.

This last comment is a source of concern for us.

Of course, we are pleased that, in the new bill, the government did not include the military security zones that were being considered at the time. However, the fact is that these zones can still be established through orders in council.

This measure seems much more reasonable to us than the prior one. However, it still leaves room for abuse and this is one of the reasons we are not supporting this bill.

We must be sure, obviously, that when military zones are established, particularly in Quebec, they be established with the agreement of the Government of Quebec, particularly if the zone in question includes Quebec City, or other military bases located in Quebec.

As for the interim orders, the bill still contains provisions that would allow various ministers, and in at least one case, bureaucrats, to make interim orders and we have concerns regarding this. When it comes to interim orders, they really must be tabled in Parliament so that Parliament is informed of the situation, and aware of what is really happening.

The time period has been shortened, from 45 to 14 days before cabinet approves it, which is still far too long as far as we are concerned. What is more, the major problem regarding interim orders is, as I said earlier, that there is no prior assessment to ensure that they respect the charter and enabling legislation.

As for the sharing of information, as I said, this is a very, very important element, especially for us, because we are used to certain freedoms and we try, as much as possible, to avoid giving the police too many powers. In fact, Bill C-17 allows two different individuals, in addition to the Minister of Transport, or an official designated by the minister, to have direct access to information on passengers from airlines and airline reservation systems operators. These two individuals are the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. This information may be requested in the case of an imminent threat to the safety of transportation. In the case of CSIS, this information may also be requested for investigations into threats to Canadian security. Bill C-55 also allowed for the disclosure of information about persons for whom a warrant has been issued.

Usually, the information collected by the RCMP and CSIS must be destroyed within seven days of being received or obtained, unless it is reasonably necessary for transportation safety, or to investigate a threat to Canada's security.

Once again, we are granting what I would call a discretionary power. We are giving the Royal Canadian Mounted Police the authority to retain this information and not destroy it if the commissioner determines that it could be useful.

Personally, I consider that to be a serious threat because we should require that this information, and all the other information, be destroyed within the prescribed time limits, unless, of course, special authorization is granted by the minister or the cabinet.

Last May, the Privacy Commissioner issued a letter in which he expressed his concerns about the provisions of Bill C-55 giving the RCMP and CSIS unrestricted access to personal information. He said he was troubled about the provisions, and I quote:

a) Empowering the RCMP to obtain and scan passenger lists in search of anyone subject to an outstanding warrant for any offence punishable by imprisonment of five years or more; and

b) Allowing CSIS and the RCMP to retain passenger information in search of suspicious travel patterns.

With respect to paragraph a), several provisions were problematic at the time and still are. Among others, 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.

Basically, the RCMP would compile a file, share the information with other police services or other institutions in order to do checks. To what extent should these files be destroyed or eliminated? That question has been raised.

Currently, from the way we understand Bill C-17, the government has tried to tighten up these provisions, but in the end the door is still ajar and there is still a danger when it comes to files being compiled, information sharing and the disclosure of personal information regarding Canadians and Quebeckers who travel. I think that the door is open far too wide when it comes to the RCMP obtaining personal information.

Even though, under Bill C-17, the RCMP no longer has the power to collect information in order to find a person for whom a warrant has been issued, it still has the power to share information obtained under the provisions of Bill C-17 with a peace officer if it has reason to believe that it could be useful in executing a warrant. This is still what I would describe as a discretionary power, which in my opinion is a very problematic element when it comes to Bill C-17.

In fact, it is the Royal Canadian Mounted Police itself that decides when a situation is a threat to transportation security, which allows it to ask an airline for information concerning passengers. As soon as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police has any doubt, it would be allowed, under Bill C-17, to ask the airline for information concerning passengers. This leaves room for abuse.

In the bill, there is no control mechanism concerning this provision. I believe that the government should have included restrictions throughout Bill C-17, that it should not have opened the door so wide with respect to this provision and allowed the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to obtain information relating to all airline passengers.

This gives the Royal Canadian Mounted Police carte blanche as it were. Furthermore, once the information is obtained, nothing prevents the RCMP from keeping it, as long as the reasons for doing so are recorded. This means that a file would be created on people who travel within the country or elsewhere. A file would be created on all the people using air transportation and all the information concerning passengers could be obtained through the airlines, which appears extremely dangerous to us and also appears dangerous to the Privacy Commissioner, George Radwanski.

In concluding, I would like to reiterate that we will vote against Bill C-17, for the reasons that I just mentioned, among others.