Bill C-6 (Historical)

Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act

An Act to establish the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and to amend or repeal certain Acts

This enactment establishes the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, who is appointed under the Great Seal, has the powers, duties and functions set out in the Act. The enactment also provides for the appointment of the Deputy Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

Business of supply

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, recently I had an opportunity in question period to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health whether the government would reaffirm its intent that human cloning in all forms and all techniques would continue to be banned, notwithstanding the passage of Bill C-6 in the last Parliament.

Question period does not give a member much time to elaborate on the reason for the question, so I thought I would like to come tonight and outline a couple of my concerns.

First, during consideration of the bill at committee, Dr. Dianne Irving submitted substantive documentation and gave a critique of the bill, including four examples of human cloning, which, according to her, were not covered by the definition included in the bill. Her recommendation was that the definition be updated. I believe one of the examples was called mitochondrion transfer.

Dr. Irving, who is an American citizen, was invited to the committee to deal with the matter on the day before U.S. Thanksgiving. However she could not make it and therefore she was never heard. It gets even worse. When the Senate committee was dealing the bill after it had passed third reading here in the House, it was recommended that it hear Dr. Irving because the issue was so important. However, the Senate did not call her as a witness because, from what I have been told, it could not find her.

This raises some concerns. About a year and a half ago there was a resolution I believe by Chile before the United Nations for a comprehensive ban on human cloning. Canada was not a signatory to that resolution but was a signatory to a resolution put forward by, I believe, France, Germany and the U.K. Canada was a co-sponsor of a resolution for a partial ban that would permit therapeutic cloning or somatic cell nuclear transfer.

The problem here is that it appears that Canada had one position in the United Nations and yet another position in Parliament. It raises some questions and concerns.

The somatic cell nuclear transfer or, as it is also called, therapeutic cloning has been the subject matter of debate in the U.S. presidential election as well. This is a process whereby a woman's egg is taken, enucleated, or the DNA is taken out, someone else's DNA is put in and we can harvest stem cells. If that egg were left in a nurturing environment it would become a born human being just like any other fertilized embryo.

I raise this question with the parliamentary secretary because I am seriously concerned that there is a threat to the position taken by Parliament that human cloning be banned in all forms and by all techniques.

Health

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-6 on reproductive technologies passed in the last Parliament and was represented to include a comprehensive ban on human cloning. However, at the same time Canadian representatives before the United Nations were supporting a resolution for only a partial ban, which would permit a form of human cloning called somatic cell nuclear transfer, otherwise known as therapeutic cloning.

Will the Minister of Health reaffirm to the House and to all Canadians that our law is and will continue to be a comprehensive ban on human cloning by all forms and techniques, including therapeutic cloning?

Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the last engagement moved me to say a few thoughts before we reach question period.

I understand the member's position. She has been quite clear. I am not sure what would constitute full economic integration. I do not think that our economy moves in directions simply because we wish it to. Our economy builds because the government has created an environment which promotes job growth, economic growth and wealth in Canada and to take care of Canadians. I have often thought that the success of a country is really a measure of the health and well-being of its people, not an economic measure.

With regard to Bill C-6 in general, all members understand that in the creation of the department on public safety and emergency preparedness we took a critical step forward to maintain the safety and security of our country.

There are a vast array of issues which Canadians will want to know about. Through the debate here and through the debate that will go on in committee, many of these issues will be explored. That is the important aspect. This is the starting point to deal with some of these concerns.

Certainly we will read in the media of some speculation about where this goes from here. Today I had an opportunity to speak directly with the minister about her meetings with Mr. Ridge yesterday. I was very impressed with the work that has been done with regard to the security issues in areas like Sault Ste. Marie and the piloting there as well as in B.C. There are concerns about the Windsor-Detroit bridge. It is a very busy economic route for bilateral trade. It is going to take seven to ten years to bring that infrastructure into line with what is necessary to deal with the current level of transport as well as the projected growth.

It was a delight for me to see Mr. Ridge here yesterday. The optics were good. I also believe that the issue with regard to security preparedness is on the right track. Sovereignty issues should never be a concern. Canada indeed is a sovereign nation.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Halifax for her comments and for her support in principle for Bill C-6. I hope that over the course of the debates we will be able to bring her on side beyond the principles of the bill.

However, I understand the sensitivity on some of the points she has raised. The balance between our national security interest and the rights of Canadians is never an easy balance to achieve, particularly in this new world, to which I am sure that Secretary Ridge was referring, where we have the threat of global terrorism.

I should reiterate what I said in my remarks on the bill. Bill C-6 does not give the minister or any of the portfolios any new information exchange authorities. It simply replicates what is there already. It gives the opportunity to improve the way we share information in terms of technology and protocols, et cetera, so we can be better positioned to share information. However, the authorities in terms of the actual information in the bill do not go beyond what is already there.

We have designed the bill to be a made in Canada solution, respecting Canadian cultural norms and values. That is why I share the member's concern about racial profiling and issues around that. The bill will do nothing to accelerate that. In fact it might help to put a better light on it.

That is why the minister is forming the cross cultural round table so we can hear the views of many of the communities across Canada who have expressed some concern about the potential for racial profiling. That is why we are sensitized to that type of information.

The member for Halifax also is aware, as I pointed out to her colleague yesterday who was aware, of the many oversight agencies that are implicit in the bill and indeed are already in place, the oversight of CSIS, the RCMP. I will not bother to name them as I did yesterday, but I am sure the member for Halifax is aware of them.

However, we live in a different world today. Yesterday the member for Central Nova asked about perimeter. We use this terminology, for example, economic integration. What does that actually mean? The reality is that economies of the United States and Canada are integrated. There is movement of $1.8 billion a day between Canada and the United States. Does that mean we need to integrate fully? There has been discussion around a whole range of options.

I cannot speak for Secretary Ridge, but I know we are cooperating. We have some shared objectives. We want to ensure that we have secure borders and that the flow of people and goods moves freely across the border. That is what we are facilitating. Economic integration is a buzz word that I am not sure I fully understand. It goes in some cases beyond what I personally am prepared to accept, but we need to have that debate in the House.

Our economies are integrated and we are cooperating. That is the level we are pursuing certainly.

I would like to thank the member for Halifax also for her support on emergency preparedness. I had the opportunity to visit our operation centre. It contrasts very well with the operation centre in the homeland security in Washington.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity to rise and make some brief comments about Bill C-6, now before the House. The bill is described as introducing “an act to establish the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and to amend or repeal certain acts”.

On the surface this might appear to be nothing but a pretty straightforward housekeeping bill and in fact one that is overdue, because it basically establishes the legislative authority for what the government has already been doing, generally not a very good practice and not one that is in the proper order of things. Nevertheless, one could say it is positive that we are now dealing with this bit of housekeeping.

I think it is important that we not fall into thinking that this is merely a housekeeping bill. I do not want to exaggerate my concerns. I do not want to go so far as to say that the bill is in fact a wolf in sheep's clothing, but I do want to raise some concerns about the possibility that the bill could create a good many problems. It may solve some problems and there are some reasons for being optimistic about that. But depending on the implementation, on the checks and balances, and on whether the government is prepared to begin paying more attention to the critical importance of human rights and civil liberties in our society and the due process of law, either Bill C-6 will be a positive thing or it will not.

I think that in a way we have to look at this legislation from two points of view. One is around the aspect of emergency preparedness and public safety, which I want to say a little bit about. The other is about the extent to which “public security” matters are really at the heart of what the government intends this bill to be about. It is perhaps difficult in some cases to make a separation between the two.

One of the reasons that I wanted to take the opportunity to speak directly to the public safety and emergency preparedness aspect of the bill is that I want to speak directly from the experience of my riding of Halifax over the last year, when the question of emergency preparedness suddenly became very critical, not just on one occasion but two.

The first, of course, was hurricane Juan, which occurred in mid-September last year. We were subjected to a very serious disaster that called for a Herculean effort from all citizens, all agencies and all levels of government in dealing with its incredible aftermath.

It is not true, as sometimes is suggested, that it was a good thing there was no loss of life given how terrible the massive destruction was, because in fact there was loss of life. An emergency worker ambulance driver was killed in the line of duty by a tree that fell crashed through the roof of his ambulance. There were also some deaths that were indirectly caused although that is a bit more difficult to measure. I am talking about people who were in a state of frail health. A close personal friend of mine, a medical doctor, had been struggling with cancer and was fatally impacted by the fact that, in her very fragile medical state, when severe damage was done to the hospital she was in, service was interrupted and she had to be relocated to another hospital. In the process, she lost her valiant and heroic struggle against cancer.

In general, taking note of these very tragic results of hurricane Juan, the mobilization of the community was truly exemplary. I am not saying that it was perfect. There were tremendous frustrations. The biggest criticism to be made, and I still feel this way, is that communications with the public about what was happening were not perhaps what they might have been. However, the state of preparedness to deal with this emergency and national disaster was really a model of why we have efforts to coordinate government activity.

I was interested to hear the comments of the member from the Bloc last night referring to lessons that were learned from the massive flooding in the Saguenay region. I am not sure if my sequence is correct, but this was followed I think by the ice storm which also created great damage. There probably were lessons learned about improving the communications and coordination that I am sure would have been shared from one province to another, and among the different levels of government.

By and large we saw a very impressive mobilization. There were heroes and incredible stories of voluntary effort that were phenomenal. There were municipal workers who went flat out around the clock without regard to the fact that they were working far beyond the hours that they were duty bound to work.

Then we have the Canadian armed forces. For me it was an extremely valuable education in precisely how the armed forces mobilize in a situation like that. I appreciated the opportunity extended to me by the minister responsible for emergency measures, the then minister of defence, when I was invited to accompany him to do a tour of the disaster areas, both by helicopter and on the ground. I could see the operational side. Mobilizing the armed forces was very impressive, not only those that were on-site in Halifax or throughout Nova Scotia, but bringing in additional personnel from other provinces.

Earlier in the year I introduced a bill which I think was an appropriate one. In fact, it would fall within the mandate of this bill now before the House to provide for the awarding of medals for the Herculean effort put forward by armed forces personnel. It would provide for the awarding of similar medals in the future under similar circumstances.

A question that might arise is, why would we do that for our armed forces personnel, but not suggest the same for municipal workers? There is a small difference that is significant and needs to be taken into account. The municipal workers, who would have been mobilized, worked long hours and were very important participants in restoring security and safety to people's lives. They would have received overtime pay for those extra work hours. There was recognition through appropriate remuneration.

In the instance of the armed forces, I do not know that the public fully takes account that no such thing happens. They are called upon to respond to duty, in some cases do it around the clock continuously without the possibility of any additional financial remuneration. They of course do that at a significant loss of time and ability to play a role in their family life. It is a small way in which we as Canadians can recognize those situations where they go far beyond the call of anything anyone could consider to be reasonable duty.

The provisions in the bill regarding the improvements to coordination and communication are completely supportable and laudable. Cutting down on the possibilities that this kind of coordinated effort may in any way be impeded by the lack of appropriate structures is overdue. I have no reservation about supporting these provisions.

I want to briefly express some concerns about what we have here in terms of both the provisions of the bill and the government's intentions. Of course one cannot measure that and I seek some assurances from the parliamentary secretary who has introduced this bill.

I want to start by citing a prophetic statement. I am not sure who made it, but it is seared forever in my mind. I says that any nation that sacrifices human rights for security will end up with neither. We have had sufficient numbers of alarming situations in this country post 9/11 where there has not been nearly sufficient attention to that very serious threat.

We heard the prophetic words of Afro-American Congresswoman Barbara Lee from California in the aftermath of 9/11, when Bush rushed to create the us and them situation, rushed to declare that every human being was either on Bush's team or on Osama bin Laden's team, and severely polarized the situation which was already extremely dangerous, precarious, and challenging for all nations to respond to.

Those words of Barbara Lee, that in the attempt to defeat terrorism we should not become the enemy we deplore were prophetic at the time. It was very sound advice. She was giving that advice clearly to the Bush administration, but I regret that the Canadian government did not sufficiently heed those warnings. They did not just come from Congresswoman Barbara Lee, although the courage she showed to stand alone and articulate that position was very inspirational for those of us who had a much easier task of trying to create an awareness and a sensitivity on behalf of our own governments.

Being concerned about ensuring public security, we have seen far too many incidents in which there have been imbalances created where human rights and civil liberties have been sidestepped, sideswiped, and in some cases outright trampled upon, in the name of public security. That can take us to an extremely dangerous place as a nation. Unfortunately, we know in considerable agonizing detail that it has brought immense hardship and is continuing to impose incredible hardship on the lives of individual people, and families in some instances, in this country.

It is not some kind of random hardship. It is not random in who is affected. It is very clear that there has been racial profiling. Individuals have been singled out and in many cases mishandled, mistreated and have had their basic human rights and civil liberties trampled upon. When that happens, it is not just damage to the individual, it is damage to the very fibre and fabric of a democratic society that is supposedly rooted in rule of law.

The list is long and shocking. I know there are some who will say that I am exaggerating. Well we cannot exaggerate when we know of instances where there has essentially been a suspension of the presumption of innocence in people facing accusations and harsh treatment. It is not an exaggerated concern to say that people are incarcerated with no charges laid, with no legal process of being brought to trial, and actually in some instances imprisoned for a considerable period of time. That is not acceptable.

We have people, as a result of our appropriate genuine concern about security, who are not benefiting from those very fundamental protections that should exist in a civilized democratic society around due process, transparency, and accountability. In addition, knowing what it is one is being accused of and having the legal counsel and legal process to be in a position to face one's accusers and defend oneself. These are all very serious concerns.

Those cases have a human face. The best known example is what happened to Maher Arar. It is shocking that it occurred because of what appears to have been the passing of information. One could say that the sharing of information is critically important and certainly in this bill there are explicit provisions for removing barriers to the sharing of information. However, the sharing of information can either be a constructive thing and be exactly what is needed to deal with public safety and security or it can be lethal and very damaging if it is not done within the context of the rule of law and appropriate protections for people.

As my House leader, the member for Vancouver East, articulated so well yesterday, we are in support of the principle of the bill. It is hard to imagine why one would not be in support of the principle of the bill, but we are extremely vigilant about what this legislation is really going to be about. We are going to be seeking a great deal of reassurance and more detail in that regard in committee.

I want to end by raising a question and I do not know the answer to this question. I opened one of my newspapers this morning, it might have been reported in many papers, but this was the National Post , and I read an article reporting on Tom Ridge's visit to Ottawa yesterday. The title of the article was “Security will reshape relations”. It was attributed to Mr. Ridge and the subtitle was “Greater integration”. U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge was stating in Ottawa yesterday that the drive to safeguard North America from global terrorism would reshape Canada-U.S. relations and lead to greater economic integration.

It was not, frankly, until I read that article this morning that it became crystal clear to me that the government's decision to introduce this legislation yesterday may indeed have been directly related to the visit of U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge. I do not make any accusations about that, but I ask the government to address the concern that is widely shared, that in fact we may be going down the very same road that is shocking the world in terms of the response of the U.S. administration to the issues of public security and post 9/11 responses.

It seems to me that it is too much of a coincidence that the U.S. homeland security secretary was here yesterday on the day that this bill was introduced, which of course was the government's decision and presumably done for a reason. I think it underscores the point that we want to make.

We want to be assured absolutely that the legislation will not put us on a further track to ape, or emulate or follow the truly reprehensible suspension of civil liberties and due process of protection against the abuse of power in the name of security which sacrifices human rights in pursuit of that security. We want to be assured this not just by words from the parliamentary secretary, who is piloting this through Parliament, but in terms of the actual provisions and protections that are built into the bill.

[Dave Chatters, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Mr. Speaker, since this is my first opportunity to stand in the House in the new 38th Parliament, I would like to take the opportunity, as so many others have, to thank my constituents for sending me back here. As a matter of fact, I would like to thank the constituents in my new riding, now Battle River but soon to be Westlock--St. Paul again, for having confidence in me. Of course I thank the constituents of Athabasca for the many years I represented their riding and for their support for me. It is quite humbling to be shown that kind of confidence and to be sent back for a fourth time.

I am also pleased to be able to join this debate on Bill C-6. I have certainly been listening to the debate on the bill as it has gone on this afternoon. It was interesting to hear the exchange we just heard a few moments ago about the oversight agencies, because that really is one of my greatest concerns about the bill as well.

Certainly my party recognizes the need for this agency and supports the creation of this agency and will support the bill. But that does not really mean that we believe it is the answer to all the problems or, for that matter, that we have any confidence in this Liberal government to implement the bill and act on it.

Considering the amount of time this agency has existed and the fact that the minister has been responsible for it for 10 months, we have seen relatively little action on this file. We had the photo op today with the secretary of homeland security and all of those nice things that the parliamentary secretary talked about, but the fact is that trucks are still sitting for four hours at the border and delays are extraordinary. It has been three years since 9/11 created both this new world we live in and the need for this security agency. I think one would have to be pretty forgiving to think that now the Liberal government is ready to act on these issues, to implement this act and to move forward with some urgency on this issue, because it never has been before.

I recognize that the minister says she has been very busy in the last 10 months consulting, communicating and gathering information and she cannot talk about these things because they are a matter of public security. There is probably some fact to that. But I think that because of that very fact this agency in good measure will operate in secrecy, which I recognize the need for, there needs to be some real oversight of this department and some real evaluation of the effectiveness of this department and how it is working.

Certainly one of the first mandates this department has is to streamline communications between the different security agencies. That is a laudable goal, because if there has been one obvious failure in North American security since 9/11 or leading up to 9/11, it has been identified as the lack of communication between the various security agencies. Had we had that communication and cooperation between those agencies, in fact, we might have avoided 9/11 and some of the other terrorist incidents that have happened. That has been the breakdown.

The parliamentary secretary referred to the number of agencies that would provide oversight to the various security agencies. Among them, I think he mentioned the RCMP public complaints commission. If the member has ever directed a constituent to the RCMP public complaints commission with an issue, he has to know how ineffective that organization is. It simply turns around and sends the complaint back to the RCMP detachment where it came from for an internal investigation. That hardly gives me confidence that somebody independent is looking at the issue and going to review, evaluate and rule on it. I very much suspect the other oversight agencies are not much stronger than that.

On this particular bill we need a far stronger oversight just in view of the criticisms we have heard, not only from our own Auditor General but from agencies in the United States since 9/11. Canada has had criticisms pointed at it for its apparent willingness to harbour terrorists, for dragging its feet on outlawing terrorist organizations and in dealing with those organizations.

When the current Prime Minister was finance minister he even attended a fundraising dinner for a terrorist organization, and to this day probably still denies that, but I think it is generally accepted that the organization was the Tamil tigers.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, let me take this opportunity, because I have not spoken in the House when you have been in the Chair, to congratulate you on your appointment to the Chair. I know you will serve the members of the House very well and I am sure you are learning on the job very fast.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to Bill C-6, an act to establish the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and to amend or repeal certain acts because it is an important bill. We have obviously looked at the bill and studied it as closely as we can. We know that at this point it is at second reading. We will look at the bill in principle and then it will be referred to the committee where we will go through it very closely.

The Minister for Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness has been in place for about 10 months. It is concerning that the minister and her office has been there for 10 months without the authority of this legislation. That is not a good sign. We would have preferred to have seen the legislation come forward at a much earlier date so that it would be clear what the mandate, role and responsibilities of this department are all about. However, it has taken 10 months to get to this point. I think it does deserve very close scrutiny.

Members may feel that at a certain level this is just a routine matter of creating a department and transferring certain responsibilities. As members of the House, and certainly we in the New Democratic Party, we take our responsibility seriously because it is a new department.

It has a significant function. It has broad powers conferred upon the minister. We intend to scrutinize the bill very carefully to ensure that there is adequate oversight for what those responsibilities are and that there is scrutiny through the committee, and possibly amendments will come forward to improve the bill.

The NDP in general supports the creation of this department. It is important to have a clear function and responsibility for public safety and for emergency preparedness in this vast country that we live in where we are subject to all kinds of natural disasters. Certainly, we saw the devastating impact of hurricane Juan in Halifax.

I know that the member from Halifax was very involved in supporting her constituents and the people of that city. One of the issues that came up at that time, as well as other situations that have taken place in Canada, is the need to have a clear federal responsibility and role in coordinating a rapid and responsible response to people when they are in distress and when they need help.

When people are hit, whether it is a hurricane, a flood, the fires in Kelowna or some other kind of emergency, they want to know that all of these vast resources that are available within various government agencies and departments at various levels are there when people need them. We certainly understand the need for this department.

What is important is the need to ensure that there is full coordination, cooperation and resource sharing among the three levels of government. I note that Halifax is the only city where the three levels of government are housed in one building, and maybe it was easier to facilitate that kind of arrangement. That did happen, but that is not the case in other cities. We have seen it play out where, with the best of intentions, different levels of government may have different procedures or operations for how to respond.

We might have one agency doing one thing and another agency doing something else, and one level of government doing one thing and another level of government doing something else. That is something that is very critical in the establishment of this department. We need to assure people on the ground in local communities that when they are hit they know that all levels of government are working with one purpose and one intent, and that is to provide support, relief and resources that are needed.

All of us have seen that our Canadian armed forces are always there in those kinds of situations. The men and women of our forces go to extreme lengths to ensure that they provide the help that is needed in a local emergency. We have seen that across the country.

There are issues of overlap and jurisdiction. From that point of view this new department with a minister in place will be an important thing to have established in order to work out those kinds of procedures.

This is a good development. The bill is generally supportable. We should also recognize that this department and the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness cover areas that have to do with security.

We have seen post-September 11 an enormous amount of emphasis on legislation, on various procedures and incredibly broad powers conferred on cabinet ministers, on the government itself, and on various agencies like the RCMP and CSIS around security. I would point out that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, Correctional Service Canada, the National Parole Board, the Canada Firearms Centre, and the Canada Border Services Agency will now be under this new department.

We in the NDP do have concerns about parliamentary oversight and ensuring that this new department, if it is established, as it pertains to security issues, does not take us further down a road where people's civil liberties would be eroded. My community of East Vancouver is a diverse community made up of people from all parts of the world. Many immigrants have settled there as I know is true in most of the ridings that we represent in the House.

I am alarmed at the number of stories and experiences that I have heard about from individual Canadians and families who have been experiencing discrimination based on what I believe is racial profiling. My private member's bill makes it clear that racial profiling would be illegal in Canada. We have seen an increase in the targeting of Canadian citizens and permanent residents based on security concerns.

We have had other legislation and other debates on the lack of accountability and transparency. One only has to think of what happened to Maher Arar and the public inquiry that is now underway. That inquiry is investigating the role of some of those agencies that will now be under this new department. What role did they play in terms of sharing information with other intelligence agencies in the U.S. or possibly elsewhere that led to the imprisonment of Mr. Arar for such an extended period of time?

I raise this because I do think the idea of emergency preparedness and public safety are important public policy considerations. We must pay attention to the broadening net that is taking place in our society. We must respond to the real security concerns of Canadians. Canadians want to see defence and proper security.

More people are expressing their concern about legislation that has already passed and what it will mean now to have a department of public safety and emergency preparedness as it may relate to some of these security concerns. We in the NDP want to express that because it is something that we are monitoring very closely.

Our justice critic, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, will be examining this bill in committee. I know that he will be examining it very carefully from the point of view of how these agencies operate and how the minister responsible for this department will ensure that things that are done in the name of security and not infringing more and more on the liberties that we enjoy in our democratic society.

One of the intents of this bill is to avoid conflict between intelligence agencies. This is something that we have been extremely distressed and concerned about in some of these cases that have happened. In fact, if this bill, by creating this department, helps avoid that kind of conflict between agencies, where they are actually working at cross-purposes or with very little knowledge about what one or the other is doing, then we would certainly encourage and support the idea. We would applaud that development of better cooperation.

Again, I think we have to go through this bill. We have to examine it very carefully ensuring that this kind of department, that can very broad powers even in an emergency, does not infringe on the liberties of people, that there be a balance. I think it is something that members of the House may individually struggle with. What is the correct balance in terms of maintaining the public good and maintaining public safety, and yet ensuring that people are not being unfairly targeted, whether it is at the border, at airports, or through intelligence gathering?

For example, I have heard of cases where Canadian citizens have been denied the right to fly on Air Canada because their name appears on a list. Where does this come from? Why are people being targeted? There is no reason given.

I recently dealt with a situation where a man from Toronto travelled by Jetsgo from Toronto to Victoria. He paid for his ticket. He got to Vancouver and decided that he would continue his journey to Victoria. He paid for an Air Canada ticket and his name appeared on a list. He had ID, the whole thing, but he was suddenly taken off the flight list and no reason was given.

We have heard that the Department of Transport has intentions to bring in a no fly list that would apply to Canadians on domestic flights. This is something that is of huge concern. It brings us into this area of security and public safety. Yet there is a great sense of unease about what is taking place. Our job as parliamentarians and guardians of the democratic principles in our country is to ensure that legislation meets the test of protecting democratic values and principles.

That is why a bill such as this, that on the surface may appear to be fairly innocuous and supportable, actually requires serious examination in the broader context of security changes that have fundamentally changed for many people in this country the way they live and the way they can move freely about the country, and the fact that they may be under some sort of monitoring by security agencies.

We find that incredibly disturbing. We want to ensure that, first, we understand what is taking place and, second, that there is an accountability to legislation, to a parliamentary review, and back to a minister such as the one that would be at the head of this department.

I would say that the NDP at this point is generally in support of the principles of this bill. We understand that there is a need to have a clear federal role and responsibility in emergency preparedness and public safety. It is something that I think needed to happen many months ago when the minister was first appointed. The legislation is now trying to catch up to the reality of having that minister in place.

We will examine the bill very carefully when it gets to committee. It is very possible that our member for Windsor—Tecumseh will have some suggestions for changes in terms of accountability and the oversight that is involved in the six security agencies that are now within this department. We will be doing that when it gets to committee.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in this House to participate in this debate on Bill C-6.

I want to thank the parliamentary secretary for his remarks and his forthright response to my question.

The bill, as he has alluded to and outlined in his remarks, is really enabling legislation for the creation of the new Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. It therefore amends certain acts and brings together certain other elements of departments that were previously in existence.

The House should be aware that this particular move by the government and the creation of this department was first announced when the Prime Minister's cabinet was first announced, which was some 10 months ago. The government is somewhat delayed in bringing about this enabling legislation.

Be that as it may, the bill takes the core responsibilities of the Department of Solicitor General, the Office of Critical Infrastructure and Emergency Preparedness, and the National Crime Prevention Centre, as well as establishing that the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness is the person to whom “entities for which the minister is responsible”, such as the RCMP, CSIS, Correctional Service Canada, National Parole Board, the Canadian Firearms Centre and the Canada Border Services Agency, report through to Parliament.

Clearly the Conservative Party supports the efforts to coordinate these departments and bring about a greater synergy and cooperation within the ranks. This of course is with one notable exception and that is the continuation and extension of the Canadian Firearms Centre which remains one of the biggest frauds ever perpetrated by a government on an unsuspecting public. We know that the billion dollars that continues to rise has no connection to public safety. It has not been borne at all in any statistical format nor in any way been connected to public safety. That money, from the Conservative Party's perspective, would be better spent by putting it into front line policing, helping with victims' agencies and the creation of a victims' ombudsman office with a budget directly tied to that of the correctional investigator. We would suggest that would be a far cry better in terms of money spent.

The bill, in reference again to the timeliness, could have been introduced last winter. The Prime Minister had an opportunity. While the minister carried on using the title of Minister for Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Parliament itself, as we know, was pre-empted by an election call last spring and the legislation was therefore delayed until today.

This problem is not one of style or substance. It is simply a matter I guess of the Prime Minister rushing to shut down the inquiry that was going on into the sponsorship scandal.

The Conservative Party believes that there has to be better coordination in the area of safety, security and intelligence agencies. We have members of the party, including my colleague from Crowfoot and our senator in the other place who participated in an ad hoc committee over the summer to set up a new oversight committee for the security agencies. That has no bearing on this legislation.

To that end, we support the general thrust of the legislation to establish under one department these agencies dealing with national security. This mirrors the direction that was taken, and my friend opposite would agree, by the office of homeland security. It is very encouraging to see Mr. Ridge visiting with our own minister and discussing these important issues of trade and national security.

This better working relationship, as the member opposite agreed, is something that Canadians should take heed. We cannot further exacerbate any tensions that might exist by having this anti-American rhetoric that seems to fall from the lips of some members in the Liberal government.

This is a time in which we have to focus our efforts in this country and around North America. We have seen the terrible results of what happens when there are security breaches, when information is not passed between various agencies, both here and it certainly has been experienced in other countries, including Great Britain.

Just last month the Canadian police chiefs called upon the federal government to convene a summit with the provinces, municipalities and all levels of police to determine a national strategy to improve the country's response to disasters and terrorism.

The signal coming from front line police and those who are empowered to enforce the law is that there is a need to coordinate efforts between all levels of government. That certainly goes right down to the municipal levels where in many cases they are still experiencing the pain of having had their budgets cut.

Chief Edgar MacLeod, president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, said that the federal government needs to take the lead in defining policing since local police budgets are becoming increasingly stretched to the limit. Chief MacLeod also noted that local police budgets not only deal with community matters but with threats of a global nature, including terrorism and organized crime.

That again leads to a comment with respect to the cuts that we have seen to the RCMP in the province of Quebec. This has serious implications, particularly when it comes to the area of drug enforcement.

I was dismayed to see the RCMP move forward with the dismantling of nine detachments across Quebec, when the government publicly stated that fighting organized crime was a priority.

Last April, the minister's national security policy stated that, organized crime is increasingly becoming part of a globalized network and that “a number of terrorist movements have advanced their activities by developing links with organized crime”.

One can assume, therefore, that the closure of these detachments by the government will signal to organized crime that it should move to the places the RCMP has left.

It is a bit of a contradiction in terms to see the government touting its approach to public security and tub-thumping about its efforts while at the same time closing nine detachments in the province of Quebec. It sends a very contradictory and poor signal, I would suggest, in the area of public security.

Another area where the Conservative Party has serious reservations and concerns is that of marine security. We believe that the disbanding of the ports police under the Liberal government should never have happened. This has left our ports and coastal communities particularly vulnerable.

And while it is essential that our large ports, particularly Halifax, Montreal and Vancouver, continue to receive adequate security funding--and the parliamentary secretary alluded to efforts made to examine containers--I would suggest that the government has very much neglected smaller ports throughout the country, leaving coastal communities and therefore our very country vulnerable.

In fact, I have heard it stated by some members of the Coast Guard and others who work at ports that if someone wants to bring anything from child pornography to a nuclear bomb into the country, it will happen on the water. That is not to sound alarmist; it is simply to point out the reality that we have a large coastal area in this country that is largely undefended. It is largely undefended in large part because of cuts to the Coast Guard and to our navy. However, I digress. I will not go into that area given the subject matter today.

At present, we know that in the city of Halifax, for example, there was a container stolen from the port. It again signals the seriousness of the problem when an entire container that would fill part of this chamber can go missing.

The Port of Yarmouth manager, Dave Whiting, recently stated that Yarmouth has spent approximately $80,000 on security systems and equipment. This is the municipality of Yarmouth. It is an international port. It has two ferries that operate to the United States, yet this port is making great efforts on its own to expand its business. Mr. Whiting said that Ottawa does not seem to be concerned where the money will come from when it comes to payment for security.

The Port of Mulgrave, in the Strait of Canso, is another thriving port in the country. It has the largest and deepest ice-free port in North America, yet it does not enjoy the support of the federal government.

In another bill introduced in the House we see that the Coast Guard will be going back to the Transport Canada department from Fisheries and Oceans. This was an ill-conceived idea in the first instance. This will enable the Coast Guard to focus on its operational responsibilities relating to pleasure craft, safety, marine navigation services, pollution prevention and navigable water protection. Again, it is encouraging to see this happening. As a Coast Guard official said to me quite recently, their job is to protect people, not fish.

I do not say that with any degree of sarcasm other than to point out the obvious. The Coast Guard, as we have seen with other departments, has been asked to do more and to patrol larger areas, and yet its budget, when it was transferred to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, did not follow it. So the one caution I have for the government is that if the Coast Guard is going to be transported back now to its original department, I am hopeful it will receive the adequate funding it deserves. What is not clear, as I said, is whether this budget will follow. Members in the House from previous Parliaments will recall that when the Coast Guard was transferred, the government did it in a very surreptitious way.

We had the Department of Fisheries and Oceans stretched to the limit trying to cover the new responsibilities. I want to reference what a Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans said at that time in its study of this move to bring the Coast Guard back to the Department of Transport. I quote from the report of last spring:

The merger of the Coast Guard with DFO was difficult and painful. Funding for both departments was significantly reduced in 1994 as a result of Program Review and the integration of two organizations with different structures and corporate cultures added significantly to the challenges faced. In the view of the Committee, the transfer of the Coast Guard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has been disastrous for the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard has virtually disappeared within DFO. The combined fleet has been reduced almost to half its pre-merger strength.

There it is. That comes from an all party committee.

Let me be quick to add that the average age of a Coast Guard vessel is over 20 years. Almost half the existing vessels now have less than five years of useful service left.

Again, not to go too far afield, we have seen what happens when equipment is stretched beyond its limit. We have seen it with Sea Kings. We are seeing it presently in the submarine program.

For practical purposes, the government is going to have to do more due diligence when it comes to equipping both our Coast Guard and our military if we are expected to patrol adequately the coastal communities and the waters of this country.

The idea that great cost savings would be realized by merging these two fleets was, in the view of the parliamentary committee, “largely an illusion. Lack of funding has hampered our security forces and our military for years”. That is a sad comment, but consistent with some of the themes and information that we have seen emerging just in the few weeks that we have been in Parliament.

Lack of funding was also a point raised by the Auditor General last spring. She noted that machines were being purchased to take fingerprints and electronically process those digital fingerprints, but no funding had been allocated to the electronic processing of this material. It is a process that is now in place, yet there does not seem to be the adequate follow-through to utilize this type of information.

It is poor planning, clearly, with more emphasis on the publicity for the implementation of this type of process than the practical application of it. Again, this is what the British would call “all swank and no knickers”. This government is very good at promoting itself rather than the practical application and the protection of Canadians through this new technology.

The Auditor General also found that the government lacked the framework to focus and prioritize these important threats. Departments and agencies are still unable to share information and their systems are not able to communicate with each other. Having this sophisticated equipment and yet not having the ability to share this information again defeats the purpose somewhat when one looks at the practicalities.

Most frightening, the Auditor General found that the watch lists used to screen entrants to Canada were not consistently accurate and that the current information about 25,000 Canadian passports lost or stolen is not yet available to front line officers. There are gaps in the system that cause serious concern not only to parliamentarians but to the Auditor General and Canadians generally.

The Auditor General's report coming this fall is expected to focus on the government's ability to handle civil disasters and threats from terrorists and organized crime. According to a news report, officials in the Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness say the audit will show that the office is not adequately prepared to deal with a large scale national disaster or terrorist attack.

This should not come as a surprise, sadly. The Senate Standing Committee on National Security and Defence has also released several documents and reports on Canada's ability to defend itself against terrorism. Last spring the committee released a report dealing with Canada's ability to respond in an emergency and these are a few of the findings of the report.

First:

Many municipal representatives did not know of the role of the federal Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness (OCIPEP), or felt that the agency was simply not doing its job.

Second:

Health Canada has placed emergency supply caches across the country to be used in crises--but the vast majority of first responders don't know where the caches are located or what they contain. Nor have they been consulted about what they should contain.

It goes on to state that the department:

leaves emergency preparedness up to individual federal departments and agencies. So nobody is in charge of ensuring that whatever disaster occurs, the central government continues to function.

Many in the province of Ontario and my colleagues in the Conservative caucus of course will recall the Prime Minister's Office virtually operating in the dark when the great electrical failure of the summer of 2003 occurred. I remember being with my colleague in his riding of what was then Perth—Middlesex, now Perth—Wellington, when that massive blackout occurred.

States the report at page 26:

Inadequate federal funding is at least partially responsible for shortages of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear protection equipment.

The report also states at pages 30 to 33:

Canadians have been hit by several national disasters in recent years. Each time lessons are learned about which types of resources work best and what went wrong. Yet there is no centralized system for collecting and sharing “lessons learned.”

The report goes on to say:

While the RCMP, which handles police duties in most provinces, can be seconded to help in emergencies, there is no formal arrangement to provide provincial police assistance in Canada's two biggest provinces--Ontario and Quebec.

Many municipal administrators of first response units told us that the federal and provincial governments seem confused about which level of government is responsible for helping authorities prepare for major emergencies. Either that or they are passing the buck to avoid financing improvements.

When major emergencies occur, it is imperative that Canadian broadcasters help spread the word about what is happening and what citizens should do to be protecting themselves. Yet there are no regulations requiring broadcasters to interrupt regular programing to assist during emergencies.

This is fairly damning information when one examines it in a fulsome way, and both the Auditor General and the Senate committee, who are impartial bodies, I would suggest, are commenting on the state of national defence and national security. It was reported quite recently. This information is current.

My colleagues in the Conservative Party do support in principle the enactment of this legislation. The department for all intents and purposes has now been operating for 10 months and is still, I am sure, coordinating some of its own internal efforts, but if this new department will help ensure that the security demands of Canadians are met, one is hopeful that their communication effort is not all that is going on. One is hopeful that these issues raised by the Senate committee will be addressed.

We will not let this new department become the panacea for Canada's terrorist threats and security needs, as alluded to by the security minister. Canada's threats need to be addressed. This department is a step in the right direction, but there remains much to be done.

Chief Julian Fantino of the metropolitan Toronto Police Service has highlighted the need for greater attention to and greater coordination with municipal levels of policing. We certainly embrace that. It is obviously now an issue of going beyond the rhetoric, the press releases and the public announcements and getting on with ensuring that information is shared and action is taken on these important files. We in the Conservative Party will certainly work with the department and the minister and provide our assistance at the committee level and here in the House in any way we can.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, one of the very first measures announced by our government, on December 12, was the creation of a department that could better ensure the safety of Canada and all Canadians, that could protect our solid economic foundations and that would give Canada an important role in the world, of which we could all be proud.

Today I rise in the House to speak to second reading of Bill C-6, an act to establish the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and to amend or repeal certain acts.

With Bill C-6, the Government of Canada is sending a very clear signal that protecting the lives and livelihoods of Canadians is a top priority for our government. The freedom and opportunities we all enjoy depend on the underpinning of a safe and secure society. We recognize that there is no more fundamental role for government than keeping its citizens safe.

We also understand that traditional approaches to safety and security no longer apply in the complex environment in which we now live. In the 21st century, threats come in many forms, whether from natural causes, accidents or malicious acts, and from all corners of the globe.

Canadians want to know that their government has a strategy to deal with the challenges of an ever changing global environment and a team ready and able to do the job. They want assurance that the nation's critical infrastructures--water, cyber, electricity, telecommunications and transportation--are safe, reliable and robust.

Canadians also expect the federal government to exercise leadership in resolving any security gaps along our border with the United States, closing it to criminals and potential terrorists while ensuring that Canadians continue to enjoy the benefits of an open society. It is the responsibility of the government to protect the longest undefended border in the world while at the same time facilitating the legal movement of people, goods and services essential to the growth of our economy.

At the same time, we must protect the rights and freedoms of our citizens.

Additionally, Canadians expect that the government will respond effectively to crime and to the threat of crime in their communities. They want us to address the root causes of crime, put in place more efficient crime prevention programs and ensure effective corrections and parole policies, all of which contribute to a just, peaceful and safe society.

The Government of Canada has made clear its commitment to ensuring our communities are safe and our country is open to the world. This commitment depends upon enhanced vigilance in identifying and intercepting threats of all kinds as well as strengthened linkages among the many partners with a role to play in protecting Canadians' safety and our national security. Bill C-6 helps to fulfill that promise.

Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada is dedicated to minimizing a continuum of risk to Canadians, from crime to naturally occurring disasters such as floods or forest fires, to threats to national security from terrorist activity. Its mandate is to meet the public safety needs of Canadians and ensure that public safety agencies are equipped to deal with a range of threats to Canadians and our interests abroad.

It does so by integrating the core activities of the previous Department of the Solicitor General, the Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness and the National Crime Prevention Centre. The resulting new department, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada, has close to 800 employees with an operating budget of $414 million.

Integrating these closely related roles and responsibilities maximizes emergency preparedness and responses to natural disaster and security emergencies. It advances crime prevention and it improves connections to provincial and territorial public safety partners. It encourages better leadership, coordination and accountability, which Canadian taxpayers expect and deserve.

Our new department provides policy leadership and broad portfolio coordination, ensuring a more strategic, coherent and robust structure for public safety. It also delivers programs and services in the areas of national security and emergency management, policing, law enforcement and borders, and corrections and crime prevention.

Allow me now to clarify that this new department is part of a larger public safety and emergency preparedness portfolio that includes the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Correctional Service of Canada, the National Parole Board, the Canada Border Services Agency, the Canada Firearms Centre, and three review bodies. While the minister's relationship to these portfolio organizations varies considerably, each of them contributes individually and collectively to public safety, and each is accountable by law to Parliament through the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

All told, the public safety and emergency preparedness portfolio consists of more than 52,000 employees operating with a combined annual budget of $4.9 billion. Having these key agencies under one umbrella improves our capacity to identify and close security gaps, communicate with one another, and operate more strategically to protect Canadians. By pooling our respective resources and capabilities, we can be more efficient and effective in securing the safety of Canadians.

It is important to underline as well that our new structure includes key accountability and review mechanisms, including the Office of the Inspector General for CSIS, the Office of the Correctional Investigator and the RCMP External Review Committee. Two independent review bodies also form a critical part of the Canadian public safety community: the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, which reviews complaints against the RCMP; and the Security Intelligence Review Committee, which reviews the activities of CSIS. This new portfolio structure, which brings together key public safety partners and review mechanisms from across government, recognizes that complex public safety challenges cannot be effectively dealt with in isolation.

Canada's national security policy released on April 27 of this year focuses on three core national security interests: first, protecting Canada and Canadians at home and abroad; second, ensuring Canada is not a base for threats to our allies; and third, contributing to international security.

The policy identifies the current threats facing Canadians and provides a strategic framework for action in six key areas. As well, it provides avenues to better collaborate with key public safety partners, such as the provinces and territories, in promoting the national interest and building consensus for its achievement.

The national security policy recognizes that we not only need to reduce the risks and respond to threats at our borders for the safety of our own citizens, we must also ensure that terrorists or criminals do not use our country as a safe haven or staging area for malicious acts against other countries.

The national security policy acknowledges that the best way to create a safer world is to work in a true partnership. It recognizes that building upon a culture of cooperation and engagement from the level of neighbourhoods up to nations is required to make public safety effective and meaningful.

Bill C-6 is necessary to advance this mandate and meet the expectations of Canadians and our allies. This proposed act provides the legislative foundation required to meet vital emergency preparedness, promote safe communities and fulfill key national security responsibilities.

This proposed legislation establishes the powers, duties and functions of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. Its provisions will assist the minister in coordinating the activities of all public safety and security entities for which she is responsible and in establishing strategic priorities relating to public safety and emergency preparedness.

In particular, Bill C-6 establishes a leadership role for the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness in these two specific fields, while respecting the Prime Minister's prerogatives in questions of national security and, of course, the powers of other ministers as provided in legislation.

For example, if a national health emergency arose, the Minister of Health would be responsible for crisis management. But if the participation of other federal departments were required, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness would be responsible for co-ordinating activities.

This leadership role is of crucial importance in preserving public confidence during crisis situations.

Bill C-6 would allow the minister to coordinate and establish strategic priorities for the portfolio agencies while respecting their distinct lawful mandates. Canadians expect that our public safety and security organizations work in as integrated and strategic manner as possible. As a good example of this, one of our key roles under the national security policy is to establish a new government operations centre to better coordinate emergency response.

The legislation authorizes cooperation with provinces, foreign states, international organizations and others on matters pertaining to public safety and emergency preparedness because the responsibility for tackling these challenges must be shared.

Cooperation and collaboration with other governments are a key part of our safety approach not only here within Canada, but also internationally. Our department works on a daily basis with the provinces and with global partners, particularly the United States, to enhance the safety and security of Canadians and ensure the integrity of our shared border.

The act would facilitate the sharing of information among public safety agencies as is authorized by law. This provision recognizes the need to facilitate the flow of required public safety information among public safety agencies. In short, it would ensure the right information is available to the right people at the right time.

I understand the reference to information sharing may raise eyebrows. That is why I want to assure hon. members what this provision does and what it does not do. This provision does not give new information exchange authorities to the minister, the department or the portfolio agencies. This I want to make perfectly clear.

The act would allow for the minister to facilitate information sharing in areas such as choosing compatible technology, and adopting centralized policies and standards governing how information is managed, shared and protected. It also means the minister would ensure public safety officials are adequately trained in operational information sharing and increase system protection so that personal information is not compromised.

I want to make it perfectly clear that under Bill C-6 the laws governing the protection of privacy would apply in exactly the same way as they do now. The act would not mitigate any agency's obligation to adhere to the Privacy Act or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I also want to clarify that this legislation is a made in Canada response to security challenges we share with our global allies. We are often called upon to work together, but our collaborative efforts must respect the particular interests of different nations and the distinct values of their people.

Canada has already seen great success in working with our most important trading partner and ally, the United States, through such initiatives as the cross border crime forum. The forum is in fact heralded around the world by organizations such as Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation and the Organization of American States as a model for international collaboration. The smart border accord is another excellent example of how our two nations are working together to address common areas of concern to protect the safety and security of our countries, the economic competitiveness of our businesses, and the health and safety of our people.

The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness has been working closely with her U.S. counterpart, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, to ensure our borders are safe and efficient in order to facilitate the $1.9 billion in daily trade between our two countries. Secretary Ridge and the Deputy Prime Minister recently met to continue our progress in developing the next generation of smart border initiatives.

In short, the legislation integrates federal activities under strong leadership, maximizes the effectiveness of inter-agency cooperation, and increases accountability to all Canadians. It asserts Canada's interests while protecting Canadian values and freedoms.

I am very proud of this proposed legislation to better integrate government efforts to secure the safety of Canadians. I am committed to ensuring that we effectively protect against and respond to national crises, natural disasters and emergencies.

The proposed act would provide the Government of Canada with the necessary tools and machinery to deliver on our national security obligations. It promotes a coordinated approach and sound accountability structure to ensure public safety and security. It would help to advance our national interest and build consensus for its achievement.

Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada has a constructive role to play in fulfilling key commitments outlined in the recent Speech from the Throne.

We will be central to delivering on our government's pledge to nurture a more sophisticated and informed relationship with business and government in the United States. We have a fundamental role to play in fostering safe towns and cities, and protecting the most vulnerable in society. These issues go to the very heart of our portfolio's mandate on safe communities.

If this valuable and necessary bill is adopted, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada will officially become the hub for all federal government measures to enhance security in our communities and improve the socio-economic status of Canadians.

The new department will have the legal status to continue the progress it has made in the past 10 months since our organization was created. The bill will solidify the new structure and provide the legal framework necessary to do the work.

I call on all colleagues in the House to give support to the good work we have already done by endorsing Bill C-6.

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, for the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Prepardness]

moved that Bill C-6, an act to establish the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and to amend or repeal certain acts be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Business of the House

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the minister will table the document at the first available opportunity.

With respect to the business going forward, this afternoon, tomorrow and Monday, we will continue with second reading of Bill C-5, which is on learning bonds, followed by second reading of Bill C-6, which is establishing the department of public safety; second reading of Bill C-3 which is the Coast Guard bill; second reading of Bill C-7 respecting national parks; second reading of Bill C-8 creating the public service human resources agency; and second reading of Bill C-4, which is the international air protocol bill.

There will, as the House knows, be divisions at 3 p.m. on Monday.

Tuesday and Wednesday will be the last two days of debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, and Thursday will be an allotted day.