Debates of Nov. 29th, 2001

Public Safety Act

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, the intent of the bill is to protect military property and Canadian forces or allies when they are off a military base. When they are on a military base we already have that protection, that security. This protects them off the base.

It also provides for other circumstances where police would have control and would need additional assistance in providing security to a specific area. It could include an area where meetings are held, as I have indicated, somewhere such as Kananaskis. It could also include a nuclear power plant.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about intentions. We are talking about what is written down. And when the senior official meets with ministers, the example he gives is the one I gave here, but we are accused of exaggerating.

The minister talks about the G-8 meeting in Kananaskis. He agrees that this area could be declared a military security zone, if the province so requested.

With the bill he is introducing, the request does not need to come from the province. The minister could make the decision himself and bypass the province. That is what the bill says. I am not asking him to tell us what his intentions are or what he has in his head, but what is in the bill.

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any difference between what I am saying here in the House and what the officials have said. I would still say that the hon. member is exaggerating how this particular law will be applied.

I will say this. There will be an opportunity to discuss this at committee and to consider changes. They may make recommendations at that time. I also intend to consult the provinces on this matter forthwith.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence has said that the Kananaskis police could ask for help from the army if it needed it. This type of request is entirely possible in the current context, so long as it is made by provincial authorities.

Will the Minister of National Defence recognize that Bill C-42, on public safety, goes a lot further than the present legislation, much further than he wants us to know, and that he does not need to ask anyone to order a military security zone for as long as he wants, on top of that?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, there are limits on the area. It must be reasonable. It must be reflective of the purpose. If we are protecting a ship or protecting a military jet aircraft, it will only be that area that will be protected. It will not be a whole city. That is where members opposite get into gross exaggeration of the situation.

In terms of the common law powers that are exercised by police, we are not talking about any expansion of them. We would take over from them in circumstances where they would need help. Aid to the civil power already provides for that kind of situation.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, no one here is naive. Parliament passes legislation. What is written has force of law, not what the minister thinks of it. That is the fact of the matter.

Will the minister recognize that the major difference between the current situation and that of Bill C-42 is that, at the moment, the armed forcescan come to the help of the police, while under Bill C-42 they would take control of a designated zone for the period they wanted, and all citizens' rights would be suspended? There is quite a difference.

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, if, for example, a nuclear power plant were in danger of being attacked by terrorists, I think Canadians would want the Canadian forces to be there to protect it. That is why they would be there, to provide that kind of security.

These kinds of provisions are subject to judicial review if people think they go beyond what they are intended to do, but I do not think that is the case at all. I think there is a great exaggeration over there on the other side. They can make suggestions and propose amendments at the committee.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on Monday I asked the Minister of Justice a question about Bill C-42 and mentioned Kananaskis and she sought to reassure me. She said that there was no hidden agenda, and I guess she was right. That which may have been hidden has now been revealed by the Minister of National Defence, that Kananaskis is in fact a possible target of the powers that we find within Bill C-42.

I ask the Minister of Justice, is she not concerned that the reassurances she gave me on Monday have now been contradicted by the Minister of National Defence?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Not at all, Mr. Speaker. The situation with Kananaskis is that area would be under the control of the RCMP. The federal police will have involvement in securing that area. If they required additional assistance from the Canadian forces, we would be there to provide it. That is simply what this would mean.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I know that Liberal assurances have a short shelf life but this is ridiculous. This only went from Monday to Thursday.

I would like to ask the government, what does it have against legitimate protesters who may not share its world view from time to time?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely nothing. It has been said many times in the House that we want to allow for legitimate protesters. What we are trying to prevent are terrorist attacks and violence from occurring. We need to protect people and we need to protect property from time to time. The police do that. There is no change in the power in terms of that. It just means the Canadian forces can come in and assist in this time of concern about terrorist activities. That is an appropriate and reasonable thing to do. All of this will be discussed at committee and members can make all their suggestions at that time.

[Chuck Strahl, Canadian Alliance, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are allowed to make our representations in committee; it is just that we know the government will ignore every representation.

Bill C-42 is moving us in the direction of the old War Measures Act. That is back to a time when ministers unilaterally made decisions affecting the fundamental rights of Canadians. They did it without parliamentary review or oversight. The War Measures Act was criticized quite properly for the virtually unlimited power it conferred upon cabinet. It had to be repealed and it was repealed.

Why then is the government once again concentrating power in the cabinet and bypassing parliament and the rights of Canadian citizens?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, what is in the bill will come into effect only if it is agreed to and approved by parliament. We are not taking anything away from parliament. It is parliament itself that, because of a national security situation, will be designating in a certain limited way, subject to the charter of rights and freedoms, certain authority to ministers. The ministers are not taking this authority; they are getting it from this House and from the other place.

[Chuck Strahl, Canadian Alliance, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, no one believes that.

Bill C-42 will give ministers the power to implement security measures unilaterally and in secret. They do not even have to get approval from the cabinet for 90 days and the powers last for one full year. There is no parliamentary review of the powers. There is no system of parliamentary checks and balances. There is no citizens overview. There is no way to stop ministerial abuse of these incredible powers.

This is an unnecessary power grab by the government. How can the government ensure that Canadians' rights are protected when those rights are held in the hands of a single minister?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the bill is subject to the charter of rights and freedoms and the Canadian constitution. I understand that this measure, if it becomes law and goes into effect, could be subject to judicial review. Very important at this stage is that this will be studied carefully in committee and if valid points are made, the government has already proven over and over again it is willing to take them into consideration.

Immigration

[Paul Forseth, Canadian Alliance, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the government's own immigration officials are confirming that there is an unprecedented tide of undocumented refugee claimants arriving at our international airports. Officials say this high number of undocumented arrivals is due to the war in Afghanistan or the mistaken impression abroad that the government is poised to crack down on the abuses that are rife within the refugee system.

How can Canadians have any confidence that their security will not be compromised as we face the rush of people fleeing the war zone?

[Mark Assad, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should check his facts because the department does its work. Whenever there are any types of threats the RCMP and CSIS take them into account. They look into these matters very seriously for our security.

[Paul Forseth, Canadian Alliance, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it sounds like he is reading from the same cue cards that the minister reads from every day.

The government consistently defends the status quo. It talks about the power to detain but it never seems to use it. We know that many of these undocumented claimants, some of whom may be connected to the Taliban or al-Qaeda were photographed, fingerprinted and then just released.

How can the government continue to pretend that this is an adequate response to the crisis we face?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is abusing the privileges of the House of Commons by asserting that there is a flood of undocumented refugees who are not being dealt with by the authorities.

These people, to the extent that they do come in, and I do not know that we could say that it is a flood, are being dealt with by the authorities under the law.

If my hon. friend says that he has evidence that they are connected to the Taliban and al-Qaeda, I say that he should put it on the floor of the House of Commons right now and not try to frighten people for narrow political purposes.

Air Transportation

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Transport maintained that the deregulated environment in Canada's air transportation industry had allowed Canadians to have access to more flights and cheaper fares. One wonders on which planet the minister is living.

Does the minister find it reasonable to have to pay $1,191.12 for an Ottawa—Mont-Joli return airfare, when one can fly to Europe for half of that amount?

[André Harvey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the question is clear. It should be the same when referendums are held.

All the measures taken by the Minister of Transport and by the various departments promote fair competition. We hope that, in the months to come, prices will stabilize and become even more competitive.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary should realize that the problem does not exist only in eastern Quebec.

In northwestern Quebec, for example in Abitibi, it cost $483 in 1995 for a return airfare between Rouyn and Montreal. Today, the same ticket costs $743.

How can the minister claim that fares are cheaper and that there are more flights, when it is just the opposite?

[André Harvey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, contrary to the Bloc Quebecois demagoguery, the government took positive action. All companies were eligible for the federal compensation program and several regional companies benefited from it.

Justice

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the government has failed to charge eight Canadians suspected of distributing child pornography.

According to an international agency mandated to end the sexual exploitation of children, the Liberal government has failed to keep its promise to set up a national plan to fight child prostitution and abuse.

I ask the Minister of Justice, why has the government failed to eradicate the sexual exploitation of children?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the government is working very hard with a number of agencies, levels of government and our allies to deal with the problem of the abuse and exploitation of children.

Let me reassure the hon. member that not only do we have provisions in the code dealing with child pornography now, Bill C-15A, which the justice committee considered some time ago and is now before the Senate, further enhances our ability to fight child pornography. We will continue to work with our allies and police forces around the world to track down--