Debates of Oct. 5th, 2001

Labour

[Gurbax Malhi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Labour launched national fire prevention week. All Canadians need to stay relevant to the dangers of fires at home and at work to minimize loss of life and property.

I ask all members to be active supporters of fire prevention week in their constituencies and work toward reducing the terrible losses we suffer every day, every month and every year.

International Security

[Gary Lunn, Canadian Alliance, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, no one is calling a North American perimeter security a quick and easy fix as the minister just referred to.

In a fragile economy we must ensure that goods and people can move freely across the border with our largest trading partner. Some 86% of our trade is with the U.S.

Why does this minister insist on putting our trade and economy at risk by categorically ruling out a North American perimeter security?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

On the contrary, Mr. Speaker. Because I agree with the preamble to his question, what I suggest to him is that we more quickly and sensibly deal with any issues that may arise on the border by tackling them one by one with our good partner and ally the United States, rather than chasing after a concept which is not well understood and has not had time to be developed.

It took 40 years to get the Schengen district in Europe. We will not create a perimeter around North America next week. Let us deal with real problems, in real time and get real solutions for real people.

Employment Insurance

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, there are real problems for the unemployed people of the country. My questions are for the hon. Parliamentary Secretary for Human Resources Development.

Will the government not reduce the number of eligible hours for thousands of employees and their families from 900 hours to 700 hours?

With the downturn in the economy, thousands of human resources employees in hundreds of offices across the country are under a terrific strain. What is the government doing to alleviate the strain on these very hard-working and valuable employees?

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, our government has set up an employment insurance policy which is working well. We know that HRDC officials spent time with the airlines and the unions yesterday, in what I understand was a very helpful meeting.

This concerns the airlines and other industries that have laid off people in large numbers.

Fourth Jeux de la Francophonie

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we learned this week that the director general of the fourth Jeux de la Francophonie, held in Ottawa and Hull, Rhéal Leroux, also backed sponsors of the event, and his businesses collected, according to some sources, as much as 15% commission on revenues, in addition to his salary.

Will the Minister for Canadian Heritage admit that this is a blatant case of conflict of interest and that the governing body of the games should not have authorized such an arrangement.

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer the question, with my colleague who chaired the organizing committee of the Jeux de la Francophonie, and say that the approach was the same as in all games.

Government Response to Petitions

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table in both official languages the government's response to two petitions.

Committees of the House

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to its order of reference of Wednesday, September 26, 2001, the committee has considered Bill C-15A, an act to amend the criminal code and to amend other acts, and has agreed to report it with amendments.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan—King—Aurora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Finance regarding its order of reference of Wednesday, September 26, in relation to Bill S-23, an act to amend the Customs Act and to make related amendments to other acts.

As Canadians understand the importance of an efficient and safe border in national security and economic terms, the bill modernizes customs administration by providing the expedited movement of persons or goods into Canada. It achieves this by providing streamlined clearance procedures for low risk passengers by pre-arrival risk assessment of passenger information.

The bill is a step in the right direction in making our border's business friendly and people friendly. The committee has considered Bill S-23 and reports the bill without amendment.

Petitions

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition on behalf of my constituents of Brandon--Souris. The petitioners are opposed to any United States national missile defence system that may well be put forward. They are calling upon the government to speak in opposition to the proposed missile defence system.

[Carmen Provenzano, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition signed by approximately 5,000 of my constituents of the riding of Sault Ste. Marie.

Many of my colleagues know that Algoma Steel, the main economic engine in my riding, is currently operating under an order of protection from creditors under the Company Creditors Arrangement Act. The petitioners request that parliament participate in the process to create a plan of arrangement between Algoma Steel and its creditors.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a number of petitions that I would like to present today.

The first petition supports section 43 of the Criminal Code of Canada. This section of the criminal code states that every school teacher, parent or person standing in the place of a parent is justified in using force by way of correction toward a pupil or child who is under his or her care, if the force does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances.

Section 43 recognizes the primary role of parents in the raising and disciplining of their children. The petitioners recognize that the federal government is under pressure from various sources, including the United Nations, to remove section 43 because we have ratified the UN convention on the rights of the child. Removal of this section would strengthen the role of bureaucrats while weakening the role of parents in determining what is in the best interest of the child and, therefore, would be a major and unjustified inclusion by the state into parental rights and responsibilities.

The petitioners recognize that despite the government's stated attempt to preserve section 43, it continues to fund research by people who advocate its removal. Therefore, they request parliament to affirm the duty of parents to responsibly raise their children according to their own conscience and beliefs and to retain section 43 in Canada's criminal code as it is currently worded.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

I would like to remind the hon. member that members have to be brief when presenting petitions. I hope his other two petitions will be brief.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present a second petition signed by a number of people from Nova Scotia expressing their concern about the vulnerable in our society. In this particular instance, the petition is about the concerns our citizens have about the disabled and it relates to the Supreme Court of Canada Latimer decision.

The petitioners would like the Parliament of Canada, under section 15(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to uphold and continue to uphold the Latimer decision of the Supreme Court of Canada by ensuring a 10 year minimum sentence be served. This would send a strong message to deter other similar criminal acts and would recognize that vulnerable Canadian citizens are equally protected as in an able-bodied society.

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

Madam Speaker, the third petition I am pleased to table is signed by 30 citizens in various locations in Alberta. The petitioners are concerned about how Canada Post Corporation affects the rural route mail couriers. In particular, these couriers often earn less than the minimum wage and have not been allowed to bargain collectively to improve their wages and working conditions like other workers in similar occupations, such as private sector workers who deliver mail in rural areas or public sector workers who deliver mail for Canada Post in urban areas.

The petitioners' concerns are directed at section 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act which prohibits these couriers from having collective bargaining rights and that this denial of basic rights helps Canada Post keep their wages and working conditions at an unfair level and discriminates against rural workers.

The petitioners call upon parliament to repeal section 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development]

Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-35, an act to amend the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act

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

Madam Speaker, the bill before the House is one which deals with the proposed amendments to the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act.

I should indicate at the outset, Madam Speaker, that I will be splitting my time with my coalition colleague and friend from Saanich--Gulf Islands and critic in this area.

The bill is aimed at modernizing the privileges and immunities regime that is contained in other legislation. The amendments would enable Canada to comply with international commitments that exist currently under international treaties and respond to recent changes in international law. This is a fairly technical bill yet it has very many practical applications.

In addition the bill itself would amend the FMIOA to correct several technical inadequacies that have been identified since it was first introduced in parliament in 1991 under a Conservative administration.

The amendments themselves can be broadly divided into five categories. I intend to focus on those as they affect security and the RCMP. My colleague in his remarks will touch on the other elements which deal more with international trade and international obligations.

The amendments deal with modernization of legislation as it exists with commitments to international treaties. They also correct deficiencies in the definition of international organizations and further to state clearly statutory authority in support of security measures necessary for Canadian police officers to fulfill Canada's international obligations, in particular, when hosting events such as in recent years where the G-8 countries gathered in Canada, the APEC conference and future conferences like the one to be held in Kananaskis.

There is a need to clarify some of the technical amendments, so there are housekeeping amendments that are attached. Finally, there is the need to clarify the provisions granting immunity from immigration restriction and alien registration that override the Immigration Act of Canada.

The technical inadequacies have been identified in a number of ways. The legislation aims to: broaden privileges and immunities to permanent missions accredited to international organizations; authorize ministers to make orders with retroactive effect under the act for the purposes of granting tax relief; clarify the act to grant privileges and immunities to political subdivisions of foreign states; authorize ministers to take limited orders under the act and provide legal framework needed to authorize retaliatory countermeasures in the areas of customs, the areas of infringements of the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations or the Vienna on consular relations with foreign states; and finally clarify the government's statute with respect to the importation of alcohol by foreign missions.

We can see quite clearly the bill has a broad range and touches on a number of subject matters. It deals in particular with the international organizations in the area of security.

There is a role for the RCMP that is clearly defined. This role is set out in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act. What the legislation attempts to do is give greater clarity to the role of the RCMP in its participation in security measures at gatherings, such as the APEC conference in Vancouver. It also allows the RCMP to define its role vis-à-vis security with foreign dignitaries.

In particular, there is a need for clarification when a dignitary who comes to Canada may have what is deemed by that country's judicial system a criminal record. The most obvious and compelling example of that is Nelson Mandela.

Nelson Mandela, as the House knows, was granted honorary Canadian citizenship, which was an extraordinary step on the part of Canada and one of great pride on behalf of the government and all Canadians. However, Nelson Mandela at one point in time was deemed a terrorist by his country of South Africa and spent almost 20 years in prison.

When an individual like Nelson Mandela visits Canada there is a need to grant a certain level of immunity where in other circumstances he would not be permitted to enter Canada's borders.

The police authority for security of international events is currently provided under common law. Its specific powers are set out in the RCMP Act. The primary responsibility of the RCMP is to provide security at events where international world leaders may gather. Its authority to take appropriate necessary measures to ensure safe events and safe conduct is set out and empowered in that legislation.

The bill does not grant any new powers to the RCMP. It does not confer any new ability to suspend civil liberties, to act in a way that is inconsistent with the current RCMP Act or any other federal statute. However the federal government may have missed an opportunity to improve Canada's ability to host important international meetings in this changing global environment.

The events of September 11 will impact on the way in which all countries view security in the future. The bill does very little to address this changing environment, with the possible exception of clarifying or restating the role of the RCMP.

It is unclear how the passage of the legislation would improve or allow a host country such as Canada to manage international affairs and conferences. It does not in any way set out in detail what Canada might do differently.

For example, Canadians struggled with the degree of force that was used to deal with protesters at the Quebec City summit. That situation raises questions with regard to the G-8 summit to be held in Kananaskis, Alberta.

The bill may have been the opportunity to explore and examine in greater detail what security measures should exist and what limits should be placed on the RCMP and security personnel in the enforcement of security around the perimeter.

The Hughes report was a voluminous document tabled in response to what happened at the APEC summit in Vancouver. It pointed out the need for clear perimeters and parameters to be placed around RCMP security. It suggested the need for the RCMP to operate within a statutory description and for there to be clear divisions between political commentary and instruction while at the same time fulfilling the role of normal law enforcement and normal security practices.

There was ample evidence that direction was coming from sources outside the traditional RCMP lines of authority. The evidence traced itself right back to the RCMP. Jean Carle was very active and present during the APEC summit. Mr. Justice Hughes concluded that there was a greater need to clarify and in some instances improve the arm's length relationship between the RCMP and political offices including the PMO.

Any external interference, and I am talking about political sources, must be limited in carrying out the essential work at any international conference where there are high stakes and/or VIPs in attendance. Unfortunately what we saw at APEC highlighted some of the deficiencies that exist. It led to a lot of questions about who should be making decisions on the treatment of protestors at such events.

The legislation is intended to move in the right direction although there is a paucity of real direction and no clear indication other than a restatement of what the RCMP is currently doing.

The legislation covers international organizations. It sets out, for example, that stand-alone organizations can move from country to country, that new international organizations can be given status and headquarters in Canada, and that all international organizations that originate by treaty such as NATO and international civic aviation organizations would be given status.

[Gary Lunn, Canadian Alliance, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-35 on behalf of all residents of Saanich--Gulf Islands and as the international trade critic for the coalition in the House of Commons.

My hon. colleague is accurate that this is a lot of housekeeping, but a few important issues should be brought to the floor of the House of Commons. One of the primary points the bill deals with is extending the definition of who should be granted diplomatic immunity.

Under existing legislation the definition covers international organizations of formalized institutions which are based in treaty. It does not cover organizations such as the G-8, the OSCE and APEC. When we host these very important international meetings there is discussion on whether the legislation is there to grant immunity.

It is important to emphasize that in no way would the legislation override the crimes against humanity and war crimes act which would supercede this legislation. Anyone who has committed a crime under the crimes against humanity and war crimes act would in no way shape or form be given any kind of immunity under any circumstances.

We were given short notice of the bill. From what we have been informed it is basically a housekeeping bill. I do have concerns whether we would be going too far in granting additional immunities. Are they absolutely necessary?

Members will recall when an Ottawa woman was killed by an impaired driver who was a Russian diplomat? There was huge public outcry that the driver should be brought to Canadian justice. Having said that, the democratic representative caucus will be supporting the bill.

Another issue the bill deals with is the primary role of the RCMP. It is to be responsible for security of international meetings such as APEC and the G-8 summit. That is a positive step.

Following the APEC meetings in Vancouver the Hughes report recommended that the role of the RCMP be formalized. It would be appropriate for the government to put more substance in the bill rather than just broadly describe that the RCMP is the primary organization responsible for international meetings.

Some parameters need to be set around security so that we can remove the political interference which was very apparent in Vancouver. Millions of taxpayer dollars were spent on subsequent inquiries that the government was compelled to call. That type of detail is not present here.

What are the parameters of the RCMP when it is entirely responsible for the security of international meetings? That should be laid out so there is no necessity to have any discussions of a political nature between the commissioner of the RCMP and anyone else at a senior level such as the Prime Minister's Office or senior levels of government.

We feel those concerns should have been included in the bill. We want to ensure that the police do not overstep their bounds or violate the Canadian charter of rights. I am not suggesting the police would do that, but we do not see that information in the bill.

Bill C-35 is primarily a housekeeping bill. It would extend diplomatic immunity to people attending a conference in Canada such as the G-8 summit or APEC. I will be recommending that the members of the conservative coalition support this housekeeping bill.

[Grant McNally, Canadian Alliance, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from our coalition for his speech. This is a technical housekeeping bill. Yet, as I have indicated in the House since we have returned, it surprises me that the government would proceed with its legislative agenda as though nothing had changed on September 11. It is surprising, given the fact that we need to pay attention to some very serious legislation dealing with terrorism and additional funding for the RCMP.

Also, in the area of foreign affairs there is a conflict between what the Minister of Foreign Affairs is saying in comparison to other ministers of the crown. My colleague asked the Minister of Foreign Affairs in question period today why he was putting our trade at risk by ruling out of hand the notion of border security. The minister stated on September 11 that indeed the world had changed.

The House closed for 35 minutes yesterday because the government could not bring forward a bill. It did not have anything to say for 35 minutes. That is shocking. I could not believe that we adjourned the House for 35 minutes, given the serious events that have taken place. The government by its actions is showing that it is sleeping.

Does my colleague share the same surprise that I have with the government's inaction in these major areas and that it is proceeding with its legislative agenda as if nothing has changed?

[Gary Lunn, Canadian Alliance, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member for Dewdney--Alouette raises an incredibly valid point. He says we are standing in the House today debating a housekeeping bill which deals with in the government's own language technical amendments.

It is now October. On September 11 we saw horrific events which forever changed how our country will operate. Yet we have not seen one word in legislation to deal with terrorism. That is a tragedy.

The hon. member was correct to point out that the government has run out of things to do. It had to adjourn the House yesterday for 35 minutes. When the government wants a critical piece of legislation drafted it can get it done in a matter of hours. If legislation affects the government it can have it brought in and rammed through the House in a day or two. Yet we have seen nothing on terrorism.

The government has told us it is still waiting. It says it will bring legislation before the House after the break week. That is completely unacceptable. The bill deals specifically with the security of the diplomatic community when we host incredibly important international meetings such as the upcoming G-8 one and APEC.

The question on the minds of all Canadians is whether we will be able to provide security and whether we need to make changes in light of what has happened. I am not being critical of the government but we live in a different world now and things must change.

Our economy is on eggshells and everyone is concerned. Members on all sides are concerned about where the issue will go. Canadians are concerned. The point my hon. colleague from Dewdney--Alouette is making is that we are in the House dealing with a bill that contains technical amendments and makes no mention of terrorism. It addresses the Hughes report which says the RCMP should be the primary police agency responsible for such meetings. However it has no parameters and does not go into any detail.

We will support the bill although it contains only technical amendments. The real shame is that we are not standing to debate the events. We are not debating how to protect Canadians, ensure the free flow of goods between Canada and the United States or secure our borders.

I wish members a happy Thanksgiving. My party looks forward to seeing the government's bill on terrorism when we return because it is the number one issue Canadians are concerned about.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic caucus to debate the important legislation before the House. The legislation was tabled only a couple of days ago so there has been limited opportunity to study it. My comments are made in that light.

We have been told by the government that the bill contains technical changes to the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act and is in effect a housekeeping bill. I urge parliamentarians to give careful scrutiny to the changes proposed in the legislation because the implications of a number of them are serious indeed.

I will not speak to all aspects of the legislation because we are debating the principle of the bill at second reading. However the member for Surrey Central raised a number of concerns that we share.

The proposed amendment to the definition of international organization would be an important change. It would give privileges and immunities to international government organizations such as APEC, the G-8 and others, even if they are not treaty bodies. We would want to study the amendment carefully in committee in terms of its implications.

I will talk about the bill's proposed amendments to the Immigration Act. At present government representatives who wish to enter Canada and who have criminal records are required to obtain a minister's permit. This provision of the Immigration Act applies whether they are world leaders or members of delegations to international conferences.

Frankly in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary it is the way the law should remain. It is unacceptable to suggest that an individual who is a government representative, part of a delegation to an international conference, or for that matter a world leader, should not be required to obey the law and submit to the same requirements with respect to ministers' permits as anyone else.

During this debate a number of my colleagues have referred to the former Russian diplomat charged with the serious offence of drunk driving, an offence that gave rise to the tragic death of a Canadian.

If that individual were part of a delegation to an international conference it would surely not be unreasonable for Canadians to have the opportunity to say no. If he were convicted of the offence he should not be entitled to enter Canada as a member of a delegation. At the very least he should be required to obtain a minister's permit to do so. In other words, it is not acceptable that ministerial permit provisions be invoked only in cases of war crimes or crimes against humanity.

There are other provisions in the legislation on which I will not comment but which I hope we will have an opportunity to discuss in committee. I am concerned about the apparent absence of consultation with provincial, territorial and municipal governments about this important legislation.

The federal government has indicated in background documents that it understands and accepts the urgency of working in partnership with provinces and municipalities to provide the most appropriate and effective security arrangements for all federally hosted international meetings.

If that is the case why did it not bring forward the bill following consultations with provincial, territorial or local jurisdictions? In the committee that studies the bill we will want to ensure these levels of government have been fully consulted and that we have heard from them before the bill passes.

In my remaining few minutes I will focus on the provisions of clause 5. This is the new clause that gives what is called statutory authority to provide protection or police powers.

The government's briefing notes say the amendment was developed in response to security issues raised by the summit of the Americas. The Department of Justice and the Department of the Solicitor General of Canada arrived at the view that the existing common law authority of the government to provide security and protection for these events should be given a statutory basis.

However clause 5 of the bill raises grave questions about the extent to which we are prepared to not only codify existing police powers in law but significantly enhance them. Many Canadians, including myself and my colleagues in the New Democratic Party caucus, are concerned about the growing criminalization of dissent in Canada. We have seen an alarming trend toward giving more powers to the police. Bill C-35 is part of that trend.

Recently the House adopted legislation to give police and law enforcement agencies sweeping powers to break the law in the pursuit of their goals. We in the NDP opposed that legislation. We oppose the bill now before the House because it provides no clear statement as to why it is necessary to amend the law.

The government has put Bill C-35 before the House before presenting us with its package of so-called anti-terrorism legislation. I understand that it will be tabled before the House when we return in about 10 days. We will need to scrutinize it carefully because it is precisely at times like this that our most fundamental civil liberties and human rights are most vulnerable.

We all recall the invocation of the War Measures Act in 1970. While it may have been popular with the public it was recognized in retrospect to have been a significant overreaction. I am proud that it was my colleagues in the New Democratic caucus of the day, led by David Lewis, who stood and said no, that it violated the most basic and fundamental rights of Canadians. We will need to be vigilant regarding the legislative package that will be tabled in the House when we return.

Bill C-35 would give new powers to the RCMP. Clause 5 states:

(1) The Royal Canadian Mounted Police has the primary responsibility to ensure the security for the proper functioning of any intergovernmental conference in which two or more states participate, that is attended by persons granted privileges and immunities under this Act--

(2) For the purpose of carrying out its responsibility...the Royal Canadian Mounted Police may take appropriate measures, including controlling, limiting or prohibiting access to any area to the extent and in a manner that is reasonable in the circumstances.

That is a sweeping and dangerous extension of the powers of the RCMP. In light of the recent abuse of those powers in the context of the APEC summit we should not be prepared to grant new powers lightly to the RCMP. The report of Justice Hughes raised serious questions about the extent to which it might be necessary to codify in statutory terms the relationship between political authority and the RCMP. Bill C-35 would do nothing of the kind.

Perhaps the most serious illustration of the abuse of RCMP powers was the recent summit of the Americas. We are told the amendment before the House is a response to security issues raised by the summit. Rather than responding with a statutory extension of the powers of the RCMP we should be asking tough questions about the abuse of police power and criminalization of dissent we witnessed at the Quebec City summit of the Americas.

We in the NDP and others have joined in calling for an independent public inquiry into those abuses. Over 6,000 tear gas canisters and over 900 rubber bullets were fired.

Many of the victims were people who were engaged in peaceful, non-violent, legal protest against the assault on democracy, the environment and human rights that was taking place inside the RCMP's wall of shame.

Why on earth would the government now bring forward legislation extending new powers to the RCMP when Canadians are asking very serious questions about the abuse of the powers it currently has.

Take the case of Éric Laferrière, for example, who was hit with a rubber bullet, a rubber bullet fired at his throat. He was taking part in a peaceful protest, but was shot and hit by a bullet fired by the RCMP. He will never be able to speak again. Obviously, he will be suing the RCMP.

I have to wonder how is it that this government is prepared to grant more powers to the RCMP, when there are so many questions regarding the abuse of power during the summit of the Americas in Quebec City, last April.

We oppose this legislation and we certainly will ask tough questions when it comes to hearings on the bill. It is essential that the committees study very carefully the provisions of this legislation and call extensive witnesses from civil liberties associations.

Representatives of the Quebec Civil Liberties Union published a report which seriously criticized the conduct and actions of the RCMP, especially its use of tear gas and rubber bullets.

We will want to hear from them and others. Before we are prepared to accept these changes in legislation, we want to be convinced that it does not represent a very dangerous and unacceptable extension of the powers of the police.

Criminalization of dissent in this country is a serious concern and this legislation may very well contribute to that alarming tendency. For that reason, I rise on behalf of my colleagues in opposition to the bill which is now before the House.