House of Commons Hansard #117 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was security.
Geoff Regan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to six petitions.
David Collenette LiberalMinister of Transport
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-42, an act to amend certain acts of Canada, and to enact measures for implementing the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, in order to enhance public safety.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
An act to amend certain acts and instruments and to repeal the Fisheries Prices Support ActRoutine Proceedings
Glengarry—Prescott—Russell Ontario
Liberal
Don Boudria LiberalMinister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-43, an act to amend certain acts and instruments and to repeal the Fisheries Prices Support Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
David Collenette LiberalMinister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand this morning to sponsor the legislation entitled an act to amend certain acts of Canada and to enact measures for implementing the biological and toxin weapons convention in order to enhance public safety. In all, the bill involves 20 acts of parliament, 19 that will be amended and 1 that will be enacted.
The bill would be known as the public safety act and would promote and protect public safety and strengthen the government's ability to improve the safety of Canadians. It is another step in the Canadian government's fight against terrorism.
Governments from everywhere had to act quickly and ensure they had the tools to protect the safety and security of their people after the tragic events of September 11. This is the second omnibus bill that, once enacted, will increase the security of Canadians.
In many cases the act brings forward amendments that were already being developed during normal reviews of these laws prior to September 11. As I have said on a number of occasions, this certainly is the case for the Aeronautics Act coming from my department. However, the attacks in the United States have result in normal reviews being accelerated to address the new security demands.
The public safety act adds features to much of the legislation which may be needed to prevent or respond to security issues. For example, those things that are being added include the clarification and, in some cases, the strengthening of existing aviation security authorities. The act would discourage unruly passengers, more commonly known as air rage, by making it an offence to engage in any behaviour that endangers the safety or security of a flight or persons on board an aircraft.
The act would require air carriers or those operating aviation reservation systems to provide basic information on specific passengers on flights when it is needed for security purposes.
The act would speed implementation of various security amendments already made to the Immigration Act.
The act would require licences for activities related to dangerous biological substances such as anthrax.
The act would deter irresponsible hoaxes that endanger the public or heighten public anxiety.
The act would establish tighter controls over explosives.
The act would provide for control over the export and transfer of sensitive technology.
The act would prevent unauthorized use or interference with national defence computer systems and the act would deter the proliferation of biological weapons.
The government has responded quickly and effectively to the serious threats to our society. Transport Canada in particular has responded to the horrible events of September 11 by immediately closing Canadian air space and in the co-ordination of accepting of 226 diverted aircraft carrying more than 33,000 passengers.
The government announced a wide range of new measures to enhance the security of operations at Canadian airports. I have no hesitation in saying here today, given the evidence that I have received from travellers in the business community, that Canada's standards remain among the best in the world.
The Government of Canada provided a 90 day indemnity for third party war and terrorism liability for essential aviation service operators.
The government announced a $160 million program to compensate Canadian air carriers and specialty air operators for losses resulting from the closure of Canadian air space.
The Government of Canada offered loan guarantees to assist Canada's major carriers.
Many of my colleagues in the House, including those on the Standing Committee on Transport and Government Operations, have been debating the issues of airport security, screening at airports and who will be responsible to monitor and cover these costs. This comes up quite frequently in question period, particularly yesterday.
I have always said that the priority after September 11 was to ensure that tougher airport security regulations were put in place and that they were enforced. However, I would like to reiterate to my colleagues that the very important issues that have been raised on how to deliver the services and how they are to be paid are the subject of cabinet debate. It is obvious this will have serious implications for the fiscal framework. Therefore, our decision will be rendered soon but not in today's legislation.
Since September 11, we have made decisive progress. The bill on public security is yet another commitment taken by the government to assure Canadians that we are taking the necessary measures to increase our country's security. This is the second of a number of steps that will follow.
The bill presents a package of legislative measures designed to protect Canadians from the horrors of terrorism. However, it is not an end in itself. We should not fool ourselves. The movement to combat terrorism will require a patient and sustained effort. What better challenge is there than to unite all of us who believe in a free and democratic society. That is what the government and parliament have been doing since the events of September 11. We have been united in our determination to stare down terrorism as it manifests itself around the world.
I have welcomed the constructive criticisms that have come from the opposition and from colleagues in our party over the last number of weeks. I would like to invite all members of the House, and particularly the opposition, to join with us in our efforts by continuing that constructive debate, that continuing consideration in every facet of the legislation and to do our due diligence but to ensure that we have speedy passage.
James Moore Canadian Alliance Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to know that the transport minister is ready and willing to accept constructive criticism because he will receive a great deal of it.
In the United States, Senator Ernest Hollings from South Carolina introduced back in September comprehensive airport and air security legislation. Inside of eight weeks that legislation was introduced in the senate, passed through the house of representatives, passed the United States senate, was signed by President Bush on Tuesday of this week and is now law in the United States.
It has been over 10 weeks since the terrorist attacks and this government is just now tabling airport security legislation in the House. The actual launch, frankly, was done rather poorly. The legislation will be noted more for what it does not have in it than what it does have. If we look at a comparison of what the Americans did relative to what the Canadian government has now proposed, it is astonishing how weak and hollow the legislation is.
The American legislation is broken down into four categories: security on flight decks; air marshals; airport security; and other provisions that are a hodgepodge of a whole bunch of regulatory changes that it thought to put in place. It should be noted that almost none of the changes that took place in the United States, which were done on a bipartisan basis and which were widely and well received by the air security industry on this continent, find themselves anywhere in this legislation.
The Americans have strengthened cockpit doors and prohibited access. The government has regulated but not mandated that. The Americans have allowed less than lethal weapons to be available to flight crews, but that is nowhere in this legislation. They have created the opportunity so that pilots may carry firearms. While the government may not support that, that provision is in law so that down the road, should things continue to escalate in the war on terrorism, it is prepared for that.
In the United States, qualified persons may help in the case of a crisis on a plane. It has given them the legal authority to do so. We do not have that power. It is not in this legislation. The United States has allowed for specific training for flight and cabin crews to deal with hijackers. It is not in this legislation.
The U.S. is putting air marshals on all high risk flights. That is not seen anywhere in this legislation. The government continues to drag its feet on the issue of air marshals even though more than 80% of Canadians support the idea. It has created a provision to expand the air marshal program to fly on more flights. Again, it is not in this legislation.
With regard to airport security, all passengers, property, baggage, mail and cargo will now be screened in the United States. That provision is not in this legislation. All persons with access to aircraft, including foreign aircraft, must get security clearance unless they already have one. That is in the American legislation but not in this legislation.
The Americans have penalties for interfering with airport security screeners but it is not in this legislation. They have an aviation security co-ordination council that co-ordinates intelligence, security and criminal enforcement activities. That is now a law in the United States but is not in Canada's legislation.
The Americans have computer assisted passenger pre-screening system calls CAPPS, a comprehensive databank to allow for the screening of passengers and people who are potential threats, which is to say profiling of people who have been engaged in criminal activity in Canada and other countries. That is now law in the United States but is not in Canada's legislation.
Also now in law in the United States is that foreigners cannot learn to fly jets unless background checks are done first. That is not in Canada's legislation. Foreigners cannot buy, lease or charter an aircraft unless the background check is done. That is law in the United States but is not in Canada's legislation.
The federal government is obliged to test security and evaluate new and emerging technologies. That is law in the United States but is not in Canada's legislation. The United States also has a computer reservation system that has now secured new regulations to protect the software from any kind of hacking. That is law in the United States but is not in Canada's regulation.
The United States has comprehensive legislation which is very well thought out. When people travel to the United States now, as the transport minister and Canadians know, it is visible and obvious to the naked eye that comprehensive security measures have been taken at airports. As such, the ancillary benefit is that there is a boost in consumer confidence in the United States. It made a clear note to pass the legislation before today, which is the American Thanksgiving, so that people would have the confidence to fly.
We are approaching the Christmas season but this legislation will not be passed until well into 2002. That is not leadership on behalf of the transport minister. We need real measures.
This morning we had a briefing. It should be noted specifically in the legislation that a lot of the powers outlined by the transport minister are interim measures. The legislation is riddled with words like the minister may administer this, the minister may provide this and the minister may restrict this. These are not real powers given to the minister. These are not real new legislative tools that would implemented.
“The government has responded quickly” was the quote the transport minister used. The fact is that over 10 weeks after the incident happened, we are just now getting legislation, legislation that is wimpy and legislation that will not encourage Canadians to fly more. These measures are half measures.
The government has failed to respond quickly. It has failed to act decisively. The legislation will go to the transport committee. I am looking forward to participating at committee to make sure there are real provisions for airport security, that we have comprehensive tools that are real, visible and permanently entrenched facets of airport security and that they are then put in power so Canadians will have confidence to fly again.
If the legislation passes as is, it will be seen for what it is; a wimpy piece of legislation that fails to do what Canadians want, which is to have the best security regime possible in this country.
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Mr. Speaker, in connection with the bill he introduced the Minister of Transport most candidly admitted that it was a vast undertaking, amending 19 laws and creating one new one, all with a concern for the safety of Canadians and Quebecers. No new direction for the government is given with the exception of the few changes made to the Aeronautics Act. The minister also said that this bill has been in the works for several years.
It is difficult. They are again trying to launch a vast security operation, to tell the Canadians and Quebecers watching “See how your nice government has decided to pass a bill amending 19 pieces of legislation, one that is intended to guarantee more safety in Canada”, whereas no new standard has been adopted.
When it comes down to it, what this government is really trying to validate is the creation of interim orders, so most of the laws being modified give the minister concerned the power to adopt interim orders, thus conferring increased powers upon him and his departmental staff.
I will read the changes made to the Department of Health act. They read:
The Minister may make an interim order that contains any provision that may be contained in a regulation under section 11, if the Minister believes that immediate action is required to deal with a significant risk, direct or indirect, to health or safety.
An interim order has effect from the time that it is made but ceases to have effect on the earlier of: 90 days after it is made, unless it is approved by the Governor in Council, the day on which it is repealed, the day on which a regulation under section 21 that has the same effect as the interim order comes into force, and one year after the interim order is made, or any shorter period that may be specified in the interim order.
This seems to announce the orientations for the Department of Health. It will make it possible for the government to manage, on a day to day basis, an orientation that it lacks. It is quite simply a means of getting around House procedures. It is a means of enabling a minister to make interim orders, and since a number of different acts are involved, so are a number of ministers.
This is being done with the Aeronautics Act to give increased powers to the Minister of Transport. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act will be amended to give more powers to the Minister of the Environment. The Department of Health act will also be amended, as I just mentioned, and the Explosives Act, the Export and Import Permits Act, the Food and Drugs Act, the Hazardous Products Act, the Immigration Act, the National Defence Act, the National Energy Board Act, the Canadian Water Protection Act, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act, the Pest Control Products Act, the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act, the Quarantine Act, the Radiation Emitting Devices Act and the Canada Shipping Act.
All these acts will be amended significantly to include interim orders and to give greater powers to the minister responsible and to his officials, so as to not have to submit to this House regulations, amendments or bills for each one of these departments.
Again, there is no government direction except for the fact that the minister is including in the Aeronautics Act, and I am grateful to him for doing so, a provision on air rage. We appreciate that initiative. There are also identification requirements for all those who are responsible for passengers in the airline system. These people will need to have an identification procedure and comply with government requirements.
All that is proposed are increased powers for each of the ministers, so that they will, through interim orders, decide alone to set new standards and give new powers to their respective officials. This will probably allow the Minister of Health to validate the decisions of his officials, who, in the Apotex and Bayer case, made the wrong decision. When the minister has made an interim order granting powers to his officials, he will be able to say “It is not my fault, it is my officials' fault”.
This is the harsh reality. There is no planning, no direction, except in the case of the Aeronautics Act and the National Defence Act, where very important amendments have been made, even to the definition of a state of emergency.
Until now, “emergency” has meant “war, invasion, riot or insurrection, real or apprehended”. Now the words “armed conflict” are being added. It will now be possible to use the army in another role, that of armed conflicts. This raises questions, but those responsible are somewhat evasive as to what directions should be taken.
One thing is clear: clause 88 changes how things are done. Obviously when it came to authorizing the intervention of armed forces this was something the attorneys general of each of the provinces could requisition. Now this requisition could come from each of the provincial attorneys general or from governors general in council, but the minister will have a say.
Subject to such directions as the minister considers appropriate, the chief of the defence staff will be able to intervene. The Minister of National Defence will now have more powers. He will have a say in the case of requests from the governor general in council or, ultimately, the attorneys general of each of the provinces.
There will therefore be more interventions, more powers for each of the ministers. This is the direction in which the government is headed, without any plan. There are no new procedures. The government is not saying what exactly will be done and the Canadian Alliance member is quite right that security measures in airports have not been stepped up. There is no heightened security, other than the requirement that all companies responsible for passengers provide identification. Apart from that, we will have to rely on interim orders which could be issued by the minister from time to time and which will give increased powers to officials, without the approval of the House.
That is the harsh reality. Once again the government has decided to simply ignore the members of this House and give powers to ministers and their officials, probably so that the Minister of Health will have an out when something like the Apotex and Bayer affair happens.
Bev Desjarlais NDP Churchill, MB
Mr. Speaker, it was with some expectation and thanks that we saw a bill come before us regarding public safety. After the tragic events of September 11 many of us were left uneasy as to how to approach the issue. We want our citizens to still have the right to travel and the right to privacy. We do not want them to have their civil liberties totally stripped away. I am happy to say a number of the committees within the House of Commons have been working on the issue from the time they got back in September.
There is no question, as the minister stated, about the immediate response on September 11 by airports, airline officials and the communities that took in huge numbers of people who were left stranded. They did it gallantly. We all owe them great thanks because in spite of everything that happened after September 11 it came off rather smoothly in Canada.
It is disappointing that after the minister's hype about how the bill would show us where public safety is he has tabled a bill this morning with no meat and potatoes in it.
As my colleague from the Bloc mentioned, the bill would give a lot more powers to ministers and their directed officials. Does it tell us what the government would do for airport security? No, it does not. It mentions that the government would do something about cockpit doors and make sure there are charges for people if there is air rage and those kind of things.
There are some things in the bill. There is no question that the bill would affect a number of acts within parliament, and rightfully so. We recognize that it had to do that. We had to have something that would address bioterrorism and be able to stop terrorists from proceeding in this manner. There is no question we had to do it.
However the bill does not tell Canadians what would happen. I am disappointed because despite all the minister's hype in the last few days that is not there. That is what Canadians want to see. They want to know exactly what would happen.
The transport committee has been hearing numerous witnesses over the past while. Almost every witness has said the key to fighting terrorism and stopping incidents like this from happening is profiling. What did we hear this morning? That is not even one of the major issues the government is dealing with. It was stated at the committee that the government does not understand or know enough about it. The minister will therefore dedicate $750,000 to look at the security measures that are needed.
The security of our airports or other areas should not be left to the Minister of Transport or the Department of Transport. It is crucially important that the people who know the business of security, such as the justice department and the solicitor general's office, are should be dealing with security.
We heard time and again at the transport committee that there was not a working relationship between different jurisdictional officers at airports. There are security guards operating under the airlines. Airports hire security for their perimeters. Some places have RCMP and some have provincial police. Nobody seems to be in charge of the picture.
Does the bill do anything to address that? Does it tell Canadians what would happen? Does it ensure their confidence in the security of our airline industry? There is not a chance that it does. The people who know about security, profiling and how to fight terrorism should be looking after the security of our airports. That is the crucial point.
Val Meredith Canadian Alliance South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC
Mr. Speaker, I will start by thanking the departmental officials who gave us a briefing this morning. I think they did their best to give us an indepth briefing of the aspects of the bill they thought were important. They did a good job.
This is a reactive piece of legislation. The government feels it must have something on the books so it has put this legislation before us. It is a number of half measures. It does not deal with the serious issues about which Canadians have expressed concern and with which the committee has been dealing over the last number of weeks.
The bill has 96 pages and 125 clauses. It deals with 19 current acts and would introduce one new act, the biological and toxin weapons convention implementation act.
Most of the major amendments would apply to only a couple of acts. The first one, the Aeronautics Act, has a number of half measures dealing with public security. As my colleagues stated previously, the bill does not deal with the issues Canadians were expecting it to deal with. It would give a lot of regulation making abilities to the government and the minister without being specific as to what they are. The bill seems to be another step toward removing parliament from the mix.
The bill would not create a new agency to take over airport security. It would give the minister the ability to take these measures. It seems to be another bill that transfers a lot of responsibilities and decision making power to the minister and bureaucrats while taking it away from parliament and the committees.
The thing that stood out when I was reviewing and listening to the presentation is that the bill would take away the authority of the House to tax. It would give the minister the authority to appropriate who would pay for the measures that would be taken.
Although the explanation by the department was that the bill was intended to apply only to airports and airlines and not to the public, it would apply to the public. It does not state that the public is not included. In essence the bill would give the minister the ability to lay taxation on the Canadian public. It was my understanding that was parliament's role, not the role of the minister or the executive branch.
The bill would allow the transfer of information to the passenger lists of foreign countries. As one of my hon. colleagues mentioned, it would not allow Canada to participate in the CAPPS program, which is, as we heard in the committee, an important part of intelligence sharing to prevent terrorists from accessing Canadian planes.
Although CAPPS is in the development stage it concerns me that in coming up with a new piece of legislation Canada is not in the forefront of the issue. It concerns me that we are not an active participant in this international passenger pre-clearance profiling system that can be effective if everyone participates. I am disappointed there was not more of an effort to make sure legislation was there to allow Canada to be in the forefront of the process.
Not only does the bill deal with the Aeronautics Act, it deals with an awful lot of other acts, 19 in total. Some of what the bill would do is good. For the first time under the National Defence Act, and I am sure my colleague who is defence critic will be interested in this point, the government is taking measures to protect reservists and make sure they are able to maintain their jobs if called for duty. That has been a long time in coming. It is nice to see the government addressing that.
I am concerned about the looseness with which it deals with the military being able to establish military security zones to protect personnel, property or things that the military protects. There was some concern that this would allow the military or the government to use the military in this instance for G-8 and G-20 meetings. Parliamentary oversight is definitely lacking in this piece of legislation.
We must be careful when we start talking about giving the Minister of Transport, the Minister of National Defence or ministers of other departments certain authorities to react quickly to emergency situations. There is always a need to have a parliamentary oversight ability to ensure that when decisions are made there is some recourse. There should be some followup to ensure that if a decision is made, which in many cases is good for a year, parliament can challenge the government on how it handled the situation.
There is a lack of parliamentary oversight in the legislation which gives some outstanding authority to various ministers. I wish that the government would have seen the need to include parliamentary oversight. The coalition addressed that issue when it tabled a long term proposal that addressed this need. It called for the creation of a parliamentary oversight committee. The government would be well advised to consider that not only in this legislation but in Bill C-36 as well.
Raymond Bonin Liberal Nickel Belt, ON
I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee of Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources.
Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, October 2, the committee has considered Bill C-27, an act respecting the long term management of nuclear fuel waste, and has agreed to report it with amendment.
I thank and commend all members of the committee from all sides of the House for the fine work they did.
Andy Scott Liberal Fredericton, NB
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, October 18, the committee has considered Bill C-36, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Official Secrets Act, the Canada Evidence Act, the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act and other acts, and to enact measures respecting the registration of charities, in order to combat terrorism, and has agreed to report it with amendment.
I wish to thank the minister, her officials and officials from a number of departments who were involved in this process, committee members from all parties who participated most graciously in this exercise, members from the other house and their committee who informed our deliberations, witnesses who appeared in both places, the people in the ridings of all members who participated in this exercise, because it was a lengthy and a busy one, and, finally, the staff who supported the committee in a different kind of exercise and did it with great competence. We thank them all.
Svend Robinson NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-415, an act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda).
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a bill this morning that would expand the definition of identifiable group under the provisions of the criminal code relating to hate propaganda to include any section of the public distinguished by sexual orientation.
The current provisions of the criminal code include reference to colour, race, religion and ethnic origin. The purpose of my amendment is to expand the protections of the hate propaganda provisions to include gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people to assist in protecting these groups against public incitement of hatred and violence.
The bill would assist in giving law enforcement officers at the border the power to stop people from crossing our border and coming into Canada to spread messages of hatred and homophobia.
Too many gay and lesbian people are victims of crimes based solely on their sexual orientation. Last weekend we saw the tragic death of Aaron Webster in Vancouver, a gay man who was clubbed to death in Stanley Park by gay bashers. This bill would send out a strong signal that Canada condemns all violence including violence directed at gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to draw your attention and the attention of the House to the Journals of the House of Commons published this morning. Yesterday's Journals record that “A message was received from the Senate as follows”, which ordered:
--That, notwithstanding Rule 63(1), the proceedings on Bill C-33, An Act respecting the water resources of Nunavut and the Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, which took place on Tuesday, November 6, 2001, be declared null and void; and
That a message be sent to the House of Commons informing that House of this decision and that the Senate attends any message that the House of Commons may have regarding this matter.
The Senate has drawn our attention to a serious defect in our records and the probity of the message that goes from this House to the other house of parliament. I draw your attention and the attention of other members to an excerpt from the Senate Hansard dated Wednesday, November 21, wherein the Hon. Fernand Robichaud, deputy leader of the government, states:
Honourable senators, with respect to the first item on the Order Paper under Government Business, the copy of the bill currently before us does not faithfully represent the bill passed by the House of Commons. In fact, the amendments passed in the House were omitted. As this is not a true copy, we cannot continue debate on this item as it appears before us.
This is a fairly serious matter, I would respectfully submit. Twice the bill was corrected and twice it was found to be deficient. If this was a rarity one could look the other way, but it is clear from the Senate message that there is now considerable concern about our records, and records, as the Chair would agree, must be pristine, concise and always accurate.
This must be seen in the context of the work facing the House with respect to 100 amendments presented in the justice committee on Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism bill that was just tabled in the House. When people are legislating in marathon sessions at three o'clock in the morning, we have a duty to know that the records will be accurate. If the government takes a decision to pursue such an action, we must ensure and be equally diligent in determining and ensuring that the resulting work is accurate and a reflection of the effort.
The Senate message is a serious warning. First, may I ask for assurances from the Speaker that no corrective action was taken or will be taken by officials to send a corrective message to the Senate until the House has clearly authorized such a message? Second, I want to reserve my ability to raise any question of privilege that may flow from this matter.
Finally, I would ask for unanimous consent to move the following motion, which would be seconded by the hon. member for Cumberland--Colchester:
That the Message from the Senate concerning Bill C-33, An Act respecting the water resources of Nunavut and the Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
Points of OrderRoutine Proceedings
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)
Is there unanimous consent to propose the motion?
Points of OrderRoutine Proceedings
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)
As far as your point of order is concerned, I will take it under advisement. I will submit it to the Speaker who shall rule on it if it is necessary.
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a petition concerning child pornography, which has been signed by a large number of Canadians including individuals from my own riding of Mississauga South.
If child pornography exists then a child must have been abused. The possession of child pornography is a criminal offence, but it has been continually challenged in the courts and even appealed to the supreme court. That is why the petitioners have raised this petition.
They pray that the House of Commons and the Government of Canada take all measures necessary to ensure that the possession of child pornography remains a serious criminal offence in Canada and that the police authorities be directed to give priority to enforcing this law for the protection of our children.
Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition on behalf of citizens of the general Peterborough area who are concerned about kidney disease.
The petitioners know that the national institute responsible for kidney research does fine work. They believe that a change in the name of that institute would make the work that it does even more effective and better known to the general public.
The House may know that at the present time the institute is called the Institute of Nutrition, Metabolism and Diabetes. The citizens of the Peterborough area believe the name would be more effective if the word kidney were included.
They call upon parliament to encourage the Canadian Institutes of Health Research to explicitly include kidney research as one of the institutes in its system, to be named the institute of kidney and urinary tract diseases.
Svend Robinson NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present three petitions this morning. The first petition is signed by a number of residents of my constituency of Burnaby--Douglas. I want to single out the contribution of one constituent, Mary Balsevicius of North Burnaby.
The petition is on the subject of energy prices and notes that energy is an important natural resource that we have little control over. It points out concerns about energy price increases that have triggered rounds of inflation. The petition also raises concerns about the impact on Canadian households and businesses.
The petitioners call upon parliament to urge the government to set up an energy price commission to hold big oil companies accountable for the energy prices they charge Canadians.
Svend Robinson NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a second petition, signed by hundreds of residents of Ontario, Newfoundland and Quebec, on the subject of the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners.
The petitioners note that Falun Gong is a peaceful, slow motion exercise practice that focuses on truthfulness, compassion and tolerance and is enjoyed and respected in over 40 countries. They point out the persecution in China of Falun Gong practitioners.
The petitioners call upon parliament and the government to take immediate action to do far more to speak out against the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners.
Svend Robinson NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Mr. Speaker, my last petition deals with the subject of the free trade area of the Americas and the summit of the Americas.
The petitioners note that in a free and democratic society citizens should be able to peacefully protest and commit acts of civil disobedience to advocate their particular point of view.
They point out some concerns about what took place in Quebec City at the summit of the Americas and, in particular, the abuse of power by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police with gas and rubber bullets.
The petitioners call upon parliament to commission a public inquiry into the actions of the police and the federal government during the summit of the Americas held in Quebec City and to release all information regarding the extent of police and government action.
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition containing 480 signatures of people of Acadia, Quebec and even the United States. This petition is related to Motion No. 241 now before the House.
The petitioners note that the advisory committee set up by the Société nationale des Acadiens, in its report presented on October 1, recommended, among other things, that the Société nationale des Acadiens continue its representations to have the historical wrongs that occurred during the deportation officially recognized by the British Crown, and the motion sponsored by all Acadian members of the House of Commons, regardless of their political affiliations.
They also note that Motion No. 241 enjoys a great deal of support within the Acadian community, both from individuals and from various organizations representing the Acadian community, municipalities and the Association des municipalités francophones du Nouveau-Brunswick.
They are asking the House of Commons to take all necessary measures to ensure that Motion No. 241 is finally adopted
Geoff Regan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, Question No. 67 will be answered today.
Jay Hill Canadian Alliance Prince George—Peace River, BC
On what days and at what times did the full cabinet meet between September 10 and September 17, 2001?
Joe Jordan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister
There were no meetings of the full cabinet between September 10 and September 17, 2001.