Bill C-36 (Historical)

An Act to change the boundaries of the Acadie—Bathurst and Miramichi electoral districts

This enactment changes the boundaries of the Acadie–Bathurst and Miramichi electoral districts.

Remote Sensing Space Systems Act

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased this afternoon to have an opportunity to participate in the second reading of Bill C-25, an act governing the operation of remote sensing space systems. The short title, which also seems like a mouthful, is the remote sensing space systems act.

Although there may be some different perspectives in different corners of the House on exactly what we are dealing with here and what the potential is for good or for the opposite of good, there probably is agreement among all members that it is truly astounding, and it probably makes sense to acknowledge this, that we have such legislation to deal with such a matter.

I am not the only one in the House who can say this but I am old enough to realize that if someone had tried to talk about this, even in my university days, I would not have known what on earth they were talking about. In fact, the very existence of the kinds of satellites that are now hurtling around in the atmosphere would just simply not have been understood or even imagined. There is something a bit daunting and a bit sobering about the responsibility that falls to 308 members of Parliament to now get their heads around legislation to regulate remote sensing space systems. I want to read directly from the summary of the bill. It states:

--to ensure that their operation is neither injurious to national security, to the defence of Canada, to the safety of Canadian Forces or to Canada’s conduct of international relations nor inconsistent with Canada’s international obligations.

We are grappling with a very sobering responsibility.

I want to say at the outset that it would be the intention of my colleagues, the New Democratic Party caucus, to vote for the bill to go to committee. However it is equally our intention to comb through every single dotted i and crossed t of the bill and utilize the best expertise available, the broadest input possible from Canadians, to ensure we fully understand in precisely what way the bill can and will be used to serve those, on the surface of it, very laudable aims and objectives.

One of the reasons I think every member of the House needs to take this responsibility seriously is that we have seen over the last couple of years, in the name of “security”, truly terrifying things to which the government's legislation has now committed us and in which we are embroiled, to our national shame, and to the detriment of what anybody could remotely think of security in the real sense of the word.

I do not actually know who said this but I think it expresses very strongly the apprehensions, concerns and fears that a great many Canadians have, with good reason these days, to remind ourselves that a nation that seeks security through abandoning human rights is bound to end up achieving neither.

What we have watched happen over the last several years in the name of security clearly turned a deaf ear to the prophetic warning of Barbara Lee, the Afro-American congresswoman. In the aftermath of 9/11, when the American president divided the world into us and them and said, “You are either with Osama bin Laden or you are with George Bush”, as if there were no other choices to be made, the world instantly became a less safe place and highly polarized. The advice of Barbara Lee was that in our attempt to defeat terrorism we should not become the evil we deplore. This advice needs to be taken seriously by each and every one of us every single day and every waking moment.

Having said that, being an optimist and always taking my responsibility seriously, we have to ensure the legislation is a positive instrument of public policy and not something draconian or even unintentionally something vulnerable to exploitation, abuse, distortion and so on. I think an important starting point is to understand absolutely, not only the legitimacy of the legislation but why we need such legislation. Sometimes we stand in our place and say that we feel that even the purpose of the legislation that is being pursued is not a legitimate one and we would not vote for it to even go to second reading.

Legislation is a source of pride and we should remind ourselves that Canada is a world leader in remote sensing satellite technology. We do not introduce legislation for the sole and express purpose of ensuring that Canada remains a world leader, but that it can be an important byproduct and in turn can spell future opportunities and challenges for Canada as a whole, for Canadian scientists to contribute toward peaceful and positive purposes for which this technology is earmarked or directed.

However let us also be mindful that there is the potential for such legislation, primarily because of its vagueness, to go off the rails. Many Canadians, and I would include New Democrat members of Parliament among those Canadians, are deeply worried over the potential for this legislation becoming the cloak or the cover for something very different from its intended purposes.

I say that not meaning to accuse any individual member of Parliament of having such intent because he or she votes for the legislation. We will vote for the legislation to go to committee but, because of what can happen in the carrying out of the government's agenda on a parallel track, we could find that the advancing of the missile defence agenda creeps in and overtakes the intended purpose of the legislation that is now before us.

Let me go back to the face value of what this act is about. It would establish a licensing regime for remote sensing space systems and provide for restrictions of the distribution of data gathered by means of them. I want to add my voice to the concerns we have heard about the privacy of Canadians and the potential use of their data. The bill states that there will be appropriate restrictions and I think we need to hear more about that.

I listened to the parliamentary secretary's response to a question that we raised concerning the application of the Privacy Act, but I am still worried. I hope he will take the opportunity to elaborate further on that . It sounds as if we may have some real homework to do in terms of plugging some serious holes to ensure this proposed act will not lead to the invasion of privacy without proper protections.

I believe I understood the parliamentary secretary to say, and I will happily withdraw my words if I have misunderstood him, or the sense of the response was, that yes we are sensitive to privacy concerns, but that we had to remember that this was now a privatized operation, that it was in the commercial domain and that there was only so much we could do about it.

The first obvious response to that is that if the privacy concerns of Canadians cannot be absolutely assured and protected, then what in the name of heavens would we be doing agreeing to a commercialized privately operated operation for RADARSAT without that being an absolute condition. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary could provide some further assurance on that issue.

The summary of the bill goes on to state:

--the enactment gives special powers to the Government of Canada concerning priority access to remote sensing services and the interruption of such services.

The devil can be in the details.

Whether or not the kinds of powers that the bill assigns to government and the responsibilities of government in handling RADARSAT-2 are what they need to be will provide the answer as to whether it can be assured that there are protections that the legislation will in fact be used for its intended purpose. We do not want it to be exploited and to find that this is actually dragging us through a back door into a possible future participation in ballistic missile defence.

Canadians in greater and greater numbers are making it clear they want absolutely nothing to do with participation in Bush's missile defence initiative. It is becoming more clear that Canadians are saying no to Canadian participation in missile defence, but are saying yes to our federal government and Parliament providing leadership. Canadians want us to persuade Bush to say no to the militarization of space, the weaponization of space that is inherently built in to the missile defence trajectory that the U.S. government is now launched on.

For anyone who doubts that, the biggest mouthpieces for the Bush administration's policy are the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute. Those organizations have been on the front lines, in much the same way that the Fraser Institute and the C.D. Howe Institute have deliberately driven the evolution of the reform-alliance, and now no longer progressive conservative party. The Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute have had a major influence over foreign policy choices in general and the military agenda in particular of the Bush administration. They have been trumpeting missile defence.

Yesterday a spokesperson for the Heritage Foundation appeared before the foreign affairs committee. His testimony will be in the committee Hansard and it is important that people familiarize themselves with it. He said that from the perspective of the Heritage Foundation the issue of weaponization of space and the concerns about the possible militarization of space are ill-founded because, according to him, both are already true. We already have the militarization of space. As we speak, the weaponization of space is beginning to happen. It is not some distant concern.

The previous Liberal cabinet minister who was defeated, David Pratt, used to say, “I do not know why the NDP, why progressives in this country, why people who feel we should be investing in peace and not escalation of war, keep raising militarization of space as if it is a real concern”. For one thing, $200 billion has already been spent in missile defence evolution. Every year we can look at the U.S. budgets and we can see the allocation of resources, $10 billion this year alone, to further develop the weaponization of space.

David Pratt would say that nothing is going to happen on that front until at least the year 2010. What kind of timeline is that? What kind of vision is that? What kind of horizon of planning for the future protection of the human race is that?

I do not want to go too far afield in this but we need to face reality. The government either does not know where it is going on this matter, in which case it is high time it did, or it knows exactly where it wants to go on this and it is walking a tightrope that has a lot more to do with its own immediate electoral fortunes than it has to do with the kind of broad concern about what kind of leadership Canada is going to provide to the world to make sure we do not get on course to the weaponization of space.

Witness after witness appeared before the foreign affairs committee. It is hoped that there are Liberal members of Parliament who read the committee Hansard because hardly any of them are ever there to hear what is being said in regard to these matters. I find that deeply disturbing because I know there are a lot of Liberals who are very concerned at any possibility that they would be attached to a government that would plunge us into Bush's missile defence. However, there does not seem to be much of a presence in terms of expressing concern or of eliciting information and so on.

I want to say one other thing before I deal with a few of the specific concerns about the bill. Those who think it is paranoid to be concerned that this legislation might morph into something that was never intended should think about the anti-terrorism measures that were brought in with Bill C-36. They should think about, in the name of security, the kind of security certificates that are being issued today that absolutely trash human rights, trample civil rights, suspend the rule of law, suspend assumption of innocence, suspend any meaningful legal process. People's lives are being destroyed and are being held in abeyance but they face no charges and have no way to get out of that legal nightmare. Let us be careful that we do not pass legislation that gives powers that we cannot actually deal with in the regulations.

Coming back to the issue of ownership and use, let us be clear that this commercially owned satellite, RADARSAT-2, is billed by its manufacturer, MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates, as incorporating state of the art technology featuring the most advanced commercially available radar imagery in the world. I think that is true. We need to applaud that.

We need to be sure that that incredible capability is used for constructive, peaceful purposes. This means we need to take up the challenge to become world leaders even more so in verification matters as they relate to the development of weapons and armaments. Let us make sure that we do not redirect that kind of technology into areas that go against Canadian values and against the promises given.

Let us also be clear that Canadian taxpayers have funded approximately 75% of the development of this satellite. This is another reason that we have to have a major say around the assurances about how it is used and that the regulatory mechanism for doing it has to be used stringently.

It is important to note that RADARSAT International has sold imagery from RADARSAT-1 to the U.S. military in the past. Some of this information may have been used by the United States in its war in Iraq, a war in which Canada did not want to participate and a war in which we have no assurance we were not in fact complicit by having sold information to the U.S. military that aided and abetted the war in Iraq.

We need ironclad assurances about any possible future use of this legislation. It is very worrisome that the government saw the obvious link that one can make to the use of RADARSAT-2 as part of the U.S. ballistic missile defence system. The very first words out of departmental officials were to assure us that there is no connection between RADARSAT-2 and missile defence.

We need to make sure that those are not just empty assurances. We need to make sure that the provisions in the regulations and the actual content of the legislation is such that there is an ironclad guarantee that that is not what ends up happening to be the real use, if not even at this point the intended use, of RADARSAT-2 in the legislation that is now before us.

Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the report stage debate on Bill C-6. It is an important bill, given the current climate around security. It is an enabling bill, legislation that in essence puts in the place the legislative framework for the new Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. It is worth noting that the department has been operating for six months or more. The legislation is somewhat late in coming.

It is also worth noting that the bill itself will, for all intents and purposes, do away with the very traditional name of the Solicitor General. I hasten to add that I am somewhat saddened to see that label disappear, given that my father served in that office in the years 1984-85. I know the member for Calgary Centre sat with my father in the House of Commons, and I am pleased to be speaking in his presence today.

The bill brings together a number of departments under one umbrella. It is intended clearly to create a more coordinated effort, and one would hope that information sharing would be improved as a result of the bill.

As I noted earlier, I am encouraged by the efforts made by the minister and the parliamentary secretary to consult more broadly within the House, within Parliament, to ensure that on legislative initiatives, even a bill as technical, and one that could be described as a housekeeping bill, as this, to include the opposition. Given the dynamic and the numbers in the House, in the committee and in the chamber, the opposition already has played a more effective role in amending the bill.

The legislation will bring together, under a single department, departments such as the RCMP. CSIS will have efforts made to include a more coordinated effort around response to provincial disasters, as we have seen in the Saguenay region and even in my own province of Nova Scotia as recently as last week with a devastating snowstorm. Similarly, just under a year ago we suffered the effects of hurricane Juan. The ability of the federal government to intervene in a more meaningful and expeditious way will hopefully be aided and abetted by a more coordinated department such as this.

I would also add that the Conservative Party, under then Prime Minister Kim Campbell, had proposed a similar bringing together of departments such as this and it was vigorously opposed by the Liberal Party of the day. Therefore, we are pleased once again to note that an idea that was proposed some years ago, much like free trade and some of the other initiatives that were taken by a previous government, has now been endorsed and very much embraced by the government.

The legislation brings into being the new department. The legislation also touches upon areas of Canada's border security, which is an extremely important entity at this time. We hope to have a more fulsome debate in the future around the issues of the border security officers themselves in terms of their own personal safety; the ability to carry firearms, for example sidearms, to issue vests and a more coordinated effort with their counterparts on the other side of the border.

The smart border initiative is something that will be the subject of further debate. More important, we hope to see implementation of some of the initiatives that have been discussed around the important issue of our border security, such as putting in place the necessary critical infrastructure and fast lanes, funding and resource allocation for the technology that will accompany the efforts to improve greater ease of traffic flow at the border and at the same time ensure the very critical level of security needed. In the future I would suspect we will also be engaging on the subject matter of a larger North American security perimeter.

Then we would get into the context of discussions around improving, in particular, our ports. This is perhaps the most vulnerable point of entry in the country today. I know there is reported activity of organized crime at ports like Halifax, Vancouver and even the port of Montreal . There is the ability currently, with the resources and technology, only to examine I believe it is in the range of 1% of the amount of container traffic that comes through the ports.

We had an incident in Halifax quite recently where an entire container went missing. That is alarming in the sense that those containers are large. We hear repeatedly of efforts made to bring contraband material and illegal immigrants into the country through the ports of entry.

While the airport security has been incredibly improved in the wake of 9/11, it is our ports now that need greater emphasis. The disbanding of the ports police by the Liberal government in 1994 has contributed to the vulnerability. That specialized police force was tasked solely with protecting and enhancing security in ports throughout Canada. I state simply for the record that this is an interest and a pursuit of the Conservative Party. We will continue to advocate for a greater degree of funding and protection of ports in Canada.

The Conservative Party and my colleague from Palliser as well as my colleague from Elgin—Middlesex—London have spoken out repeatedly against the proliferation of the long gun registry and the incredible waste that has flowed, now approaching $2 billion. Under the questionable guidance of the previous finance minister, this legislation was brought forward back in the early nineties in the wake of a terrible disaster in Montreal. It was done at that time, I would suggest, for political posturing rather than actual public safety.

It was stated at that point that the cost of such a registry would be somewhere in the range of $2 million. As it approaches $2 billion that has been identified by none other than the very impartial and very able Auditor General, this is probably the largest fraud ever perpetrated on the Canadian public in the history of this country.

The bill puts in place or brings along with the new department the Canadian Firearms Centre. The reason we moved an amendment was to ensure that there was actual clarity and actual enunciation of the various departments as opposed to the way in which it was referred to originally, simply as entities. We want to be able to track the activities and in particular the monetary shenanigans that we have seen in the past when it comes to the firearms registry, the long gun registry, which we continue to oppose on principle, not because in any way, shape or form should it ever be misconstrued as the Conservative Party not being for effective gun control.

That is a completely different issue. Hon. members know very well that the Conservative Party of the day brought in some of the most effective public safety gun control measures ever seen in this country: issues related to safe storage, to the storage of ammunition and keeping that separate from firearms.

We have had handgun registration in this country since the 1940s. The biggest problem today on the streets of large cities, even in small towns and communities, is not long guns; it is not rifles or shotguns. It is handguns; it is nine millimetres that are coming into this country illegally.

We know that the resources that have been put into this useless fiasco of a gun registry, this bureaucratic quagmire, if that money had been placed into front line policing, training or even a registry of sex offenders as opposed to inanimate objects, the public safety, the crime control, and the ability of police to enforce crime control would have increased exponentially.

The bill itself, as I indicated, is one that the Conservative Party supports in principle. It is enabling legislation that will bring together these various entities, referred to already as the firearms centre. I hope it will also lead to a greater degree of sharing of information, in particular between the RCMP and CSIS.

There is as well an effort to set up an oversight body in Parliament that will allow for a greater review by parliamentarians of the activities of CSIS, the activities of CSE, and security information gathering within the country.

I note as well that Bill C-36, the antiterrorism legislation, will be back before a committee for a mandatory review. That was put in place and will require a review of the provisions and in fact the use of those new enabling powers that were put in place under Bill C-36. I look forward to taking part in the discussions in committee on behalf of the Conservative Party along with my colleagues and members from all sides of the House. There is certainly a need for a vigorous and vigilant review of security measures in the country.

It is our hope that this new department will continue in the same vein of cooperation that we have seen thus far. We hope that continues. We hope that the minister will continue to come before the committee, as she has already done in this Parliament.

We call upon all parliamentarians to be very vigilant and serious in their examination of issues such as this that pertain to the critical area of security, given the heightened degree of threat that exists in the world today. Canada has been specifically named by none other than Osama bin Laden as a potential target. We know that there continue to be active threats in this country. The raising of funds to support terrorism continues, sadly, in Canada today.

There is much to do. There is much that we and the government can do with respect to our security forces in Canada today. Providing them with the proper resources, tools and support, first and foremost, should factor very highly on the parliamentary agenda. This legislation is now giving this department the mandate to do just that.

I see in this legislation wherein subclause 6(2) a commission or advisory committee will be set up. Given past practices, we have reason for skepticism, but it is certainly our hope that this will not become another area of patronage or an area in which the government will simply put people into positions without any form of consultation, at least not the token consultation that we saw in the appointment of Supreme Court judges. That is one other area that I highlight that appears in the bill itself.

We look forward, on behalf of the Conservative Party, to participating fully in the further discussion around this legislation.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

We have a lot of chirping coming from the hon. member from Newfoundland because he knows full well that he broke his word to his province. His word was not consistent at all with what he said during the election to garner votes. I think the people of his home province will see that and will recognize it the next time. While the hon. member opposite continues to chirp away, we know and the people of his province know full well that his word does not really amount to a pound of salt herring.

The Conservative Party supports the legislation. We support the principle behind setting up this new department, which we did 10 years ago. Ironically, as members of the day will recall, the Liberal Party in opposition adamantly opposed bringing together a department similar to what we see in the United States and what it refers to as its homeland security.

The amendment put forward by the Conservative Party, which was accepted at the committee and forms part of the new legislation, was proposed in essence because there was ambiguity in the original legislation. It talked about entities in an open-ended way as opposed to simply listing them as they appear in other parts of the bill. Those entities include the RCMP, CSIS, the Canada Border Services Agency, the Canada Firearms Centre, which I will come back to, the Correctional Service of Canada and the National Parole Board.

The reason for the amendment is that we want to see those departments named in the bill so that we are able to track some of these entities, in particular, the Canada Firearms Centre. The Canada Firearms Centre was initially in the Department of Justice. It was then moved to the Solicitor General's department. It is now into this new entity called public safety and emergency preparedness.

We want to draw attention to the fact that we are keeping a very close eye, particularly on the budget and spending allotments as they pertain to the Canada Firearms Centre. We have concerns over the funding and over the way in which it is operating.

I would submit that one of the biggest frauds ever perpetrated on an unsuspecting public has occurred when it comes to the Canada Firearms Centre. What was supposed to be a $2 million allotment has turned into an expenditure of the public purse now approaching $2 billion. No one has yet been able to adequately set out the case that this is justified in the way of protecting the public.

We have seen effort after effort by the government, new computer systems, new software, new locations, efforts that have been made in particular on the public relations side as opposed to the effective public protection side, which is what we oppose. This is not about gun control. The Conservative Party has a long record of supporting gun control, supporting public protection, supporting the police and supporting our security forces. What this is about is a public relations exercise.

I want to draw attention to a recent example in which the Canada Firearms Centre announced that it intends to spend no new money, zero new funds, on gun safety education in the next year but that it plans to dish out approximately $3 million for a public relations exercise and a communications strategy. This was confirmed by the centre itself.

Yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister said that the main goal of the program was public safety and yet the supporting documentation around the expenditures over the next year show zero money allotted for public safety. One would wonder why we want to see in writing, clearly set out in the bill, the expenditures and efforts made to continue this fiasco called the long gun registration.

We support the bill. We support the effort to share information. We support every effort to give our policing and security forces the necessary resources and support from government. What we do not support is a further shell game and act of deception on the part of the government in terms of keeping this ill-fated boondoggle of a registry alive.

I want to return to the amendment made by my colleague, the Bloc member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin. This similarly puts forward an amendment that would put in writing within the bill that there will be no intrusion on provincial jurisdiction. The government is now trying to change back to its original form of what happened at the committee.

There was support from other parties on that particular amendment and the amendment itself is one that simply adds a degree of certainty to the protection of provincial and territorial jurisdiction. We supported that effort then and we continue to support it. We do not believe it is binding in terms of future legislation and we do not believe it is precedent setting.

The Department of the Solicitor General, the Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness and the National Crime Prevention Centre are well established within the legislation. The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness is responsible for those entities.

One of the great ironies that I found in reviewing the legislation and seeing the word “entities” is that in Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism legislation, when the word “entities” is used in that context in that bill what they are talking about is terrorist activities referred to as entities. Here we have another bill where we are talking about anti-terrorism and Canadian national security forces that are similarly referred to as entities. I see that as a glaring contradiction.

It is important that we have this coordinated effort to form a strategy and to put forward adequate support and resources in the fight against global terrorism and threats in North America. I agree with the comments of the parliamentary secretary about the importance of a coordinated and diligent effort in that regard.

Recently the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, also known as FINTRAC, reported that three years after the crackdown on terror financing, those who backed violent causes remain in Canada and continue to use this country as a base for bank-rolling some of the bloodshed that we see playing out around the world. Investigators found that $70 million worth of suspected terrorist financing was still taking place in Canada this year. That is more than three times the amount that was detected in 2003. We still have work to do here at home and abroad.

We also continue to have a need to bring together our ties with the United States of America and, I would suggest, Mexico, to ensure that we have very close coordinated efforts here in North America in exploring the possibility of a security perimeter.

The Conservative Party supports the legislation to enable this new department. We believe it is an important effort on behalf of the House of Commons and all Canadians.

Quarantine Act

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, let me assure the previous speaker that all members of the House were riveted by her comments. She mentioned that she wished to deliver a riveting speech.

We all share her concerns and we look forward to having a discussion at the committee level on some of the areas that have been raised, not only by the previous speaker, but by all the other speakers. I think that is the role of the committee.

We have an agreement on the bill which is the main thing. As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, I have a particular interest in the renewal of health protection legislation that the government has undertaken. The modernization of the Quarantine Act is the first step in this renewal, one that will establish a comprehensive framework for public health in our country.

In light of the lessons learned from the SARS crisis and the recommendations made by Dr. David Naylor, a earlier version of the bill was tabled in the House on May 12, 2004. Unfortunately, this bill, Bill C-36, died on the Order Paper when the federal election was called.

Since then, the public health system has undergone major changes. Among other things, the Public Health Agency of Canada has been created and the first Chief Public Health Officer has been appointed.

In the wake of these important events, the government has introduced a newly proposed quarantine act. Bill C-12 will replace the current Quarantine Act, one of Canada's oldest pieces of legislation, which has remained largely unchanged since the adoption of the first Quarantine Act in 1872.

The Quarantine Act is a crucial piece of legislation. In a world where disease knows no borders, the act is the only federal statute concerned with preventing and controlling the introduction and spread of infectious diseases.

This legislation offers safeguards at the Canadian border and points of entry to Canada by screening for the import and export of infectious diseases. It complements provincial and territorial public health laws, given that each province and territory has adopted its own such laws to contain infectious diseases within its own borders.

However, one can see that the current law poses certain problems. For example, it includes numerous outdated and redundant sections. It requires that an order be issued to add an infectious disease to the list, thereby reducing our capacity to react quickly to a public health emergency. It raises some concerns with regard to the Canadian Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. It is not consistent with the suggested amendments to the International Health Regulations. It does not deal with interprovincial travel.

I believe that the proposed legislation would help address these problems. Once enacted, the new Quarantine Act would ensure that the federal government has the proper legislative tools to deal effectively with the next public health crisis.

Bill C-12 would provide many advantages over the current act. It would streamline the emergency response process by eliminating the distinction between listed and other diseases. It would clarify the respective roles of officers, operators and the courts. It would ensure that human rights are adequately protected, giving people the right to legal counsel, interpreters and medical examinations. It would facilitate linkages with other authorities, such as provincial health authorities or the RCMP in the case of suspected terrorism. It would clarify the authority to collect and share personal information. It would give authority to the minister to issue emergency orders consistent with the Public Safety Act. It would modernize enforcement powers, such as the authority to divert carriers and secure quarantine space.

Naturally, we will need to hold further consultations with provincial and territorial governments regarding the federal role. We need to clarify the matter of federal assistance for controlling and managing the outbreak of infectious diseases in Canada.

For example, as the Naylor commission pointed out, we must give thought to the need to give the federal government the necessary powers to limit or prohibit the interprovincial movement of people, vehicles and goods during a public health emergency, and we must also give thought to the need for the power to declare a national public health emergency.

We will also need to clarify if the federal government has the authority to provide certain legal and economic protections for travellers who are detained for public health purposes, such as preventing someone from losing their job, as well as other things that have been mentioned by previous speakers.

We want to be ready should the unthinkable happen. The Minister of Health, the Minister of State for Public Health and I are extremely proud of this legislation. It is a critical important first step forward in a series of improvements the Government of Canada is making to strengthen our public health system.

In passing this legislation, we will be sending a clear message to Canadians that their health and their safety are a priority for this government.