Debates of Nov. 5th, 2002

Supply

[The Speaker]

I declare the motion lost.

[John Reynolds, Canadian Alliance, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With regard to the vote we had today, I would like to say that it was one short and halting step toward making what we do here in Parliament more meaningful. I want to congratulate all members, no matter how they voted today on a very important issue.

[The Speaker]

It does not sound like a point of order to me.

Order, please. I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions government orders will be extended by 23 minutes.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-17, 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Public Safety Act, 2002

[The Speaker]

When the debate was interrupted for question period the hon. member for Calgary East had the floor. He has four minutes remaining in the time allotted for his remarks.

[Deepak Obhrai, Canadian Alliance, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, before I commence my concluding remarks I want to say that today after a long time we have taken one small step for the MPs but a giant leap for the Canadian voters in putting democracy back in the House. We are very pleased.

In reference to Bill C-17 on public safety, the most important fact is that we needed the bill because of the September 11 attack, but subsequent events are showing that people are overreacting.

When the bill was first introduced I made a speech saying that while we were delegating powers it was important to ensure that we did not go overboard. The recent announcements from our good friends from the south indicate that at times they do go overboard.

It is time for us to talk to the Americans about Canadians or landed immigrants being profiled or fingerprinted in the U.S.A. I hope the government will take strong measures to ensure that it feels confident and we feel confident in our immigration system, and that its security aspects are tightly monitored to ensure that those who come in wanting to break the law do not squeeze in through our system and then create a mistrust in our immigration system.

The bill also deals with part 8 which amends the Import and Export Permits Act by providing control on exports and transfers of technology, in essence, in the biological and toxin weapons conventions implementation act. It is interesting to note that it took the Liberal government almost 30 years before it finally signed and improved on this act.

Once again I would like to say, as my other colleagues have said in this place, that this is an omnibus bill that touches a lot of aspects. We all cannot debate all these aspects but nevertheless have to be vigilant to ensure that the rights of Canadians are protected.

Points of Order

[Dale Johnston, Canadian Alliance, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we have just been notified of a Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage meeting to take place tomorrow at 3:30 p.m. On that point of order, this notice was sent out by the committees directorate advising of that meeting of Canadian Heritage without the required 48 hours' notice. The notice states that the order of the day is pursuant to Standing Order 106(1) and (2), election of the chair and vice-chairs.

As you well know, Mr. Speaker, Standing Order 106(1) states in part that:

...the Clerk of the House shall convene a meeting of each standing committee whose membership is contained in that report for the purpose of electing a Chairman, provided that forty-eight hours' notice is given of any such meeting.

The heritage committee did meet this morning after 48 hours' notice, but failed to elect the chair and so dispersed.

As I mentioned earlier, a notice has now been sent to my office stating that a meeting has been rescheduled for tomorrow, which in my view is in violation of the 48 hours' notice provision. I have inquired with the clerk in charge of committees and the Clerk of the House, who state that the 48 hours' notice in their opinion is not required because it has been given earlier. To back up this point of view they cite one incident from the 35th Parliament involving the public accounts committee.

I submit that the one incident does not constitute a proper precedent. I submit the former clerk of the House said that “Often bad precedent does not make good practice”. I would submit also that this is the case here today, especially given that at the time of that incident both the official opposition and the third party in the House were brand new to this environment and did not have enough knowledge or experience to question the ruling made at that time. As Mr. Speaker will know, at that time there were some 205 of 295 newly elected members to the House.

I would therefore ask, Mr. Speaker, that you rescind this notice in favour of a new notice that respects the standing orders, particularly the 48 hours' notice.

[The Speaker]

The Chair will certainly take the point of order raised by the hon. member under advisement. He is absolutely right that bad precedents make poor procedure. In quoting the former clerk, I know he is quoting someone of the highest authority in support of his argument.

However in this case the hon. member has pointed out that there are arguments on the other side. There is the variation in the practice. I will look into the matter and get back to the House later this afternoon, but I understand that 48 hours' notice, as he stated, was given for the first meeting. It is a question of whether it needs to be given for the second meeting, since the first meeting was unable to complete the business that was before it.

I can assure the hon. member I will look into it and I will get back to the House later this day.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-17, 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Public Safety Act, 2002

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague how he can argue that security requires measures that violate fundamental rights as defined and defended by the privacy commissioner.

[Deepak Obhrai, Canadian Alliance, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think I said that. What I said was that in relation to the Immigration Act, in relation to what has happened after September 11 and the recent pronouncements made by the U.S.A., asking Canadians from certain regions and making two classes of citizens is unacceptable. However the Americans are reacting because they perceive there is a problem in our system of immigration, of security checks and other things.

Anybody who comes here has to undergo security checks, as was passed in this Parliament. We have to ensure that we maintain the security checks fair and square as has been passed by this Parliament. When people come in from all parts of the world with security checks, they should participate fully like any other Canadian. Our friends in the south then would not have a cause or a concern to put certain rules on people from certain countries.

As a matter of fact, we should be very cautious and not trample on our human rights. That is absolutely important. At the same time we must ensure that we have a system that will take care of all these points. That was the point I was making.

[Inky Mark, Canadian Alliance, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the member. I would like to ask the hon. member one question. Does he feel that the ministerial permits signed by the minister create a risk in terms of security for this country?

[Deepak Obhrai, Canadian Alliance, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, he has made an absolutely good point. I have a document from the citizenship board that states how many claimants from various countries have applied.

As for the ministerial permit that my hon. colleague talked about, a couple of years ago in the citizenship committee I tried to get the reasons behind why those permits were being issued. The Liberals manipulated the committee and gave no reasons.

As of today, a new report has come out on the number of permits issued by the minister. He answered the question here and he may be right that the problem could be a genuine case. However Canadians have the rights to know the reasons for these permits being issued. The government should make it transparent and tell us why these permits are issued, not just issue them. We need to have the confidence that claimants who are criminally ineligible are not allowed to enter the country.

We need a transparent system whereby we know why the minister has issued permit for these individuals. I hope the message gets out to make this a transparent system.

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague from the Alliance this question: how does he see the problem of interim orders? We see these interim orders as a serious problem. When things are done under provisions that allow violations of the Charter and of the enabling statute, how does his party see this problem?

[Deepak Obhrai, Canadian Alliance, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the government has the responsibility to govern. However the key element under Parliament is that there be a transparency to ensure that human rights are not abused. These are rights which over the years we have established in Canada through Canadian Parliament and for which people have fought. One of those rights was the right of women to vote. However I am not saying these rights will be abused.

Over the years we have reached a level where we have some of the best human rights legislation in the world and we must ensure that none of these will be taken away through a unilateral act by the government. Therefore it is the responsibility of us and the committee to ensure that that does not happen. Nevertheless they still have to have some room so they are able to manoeuvre and govern and rise to the occasion.

[Val Meredith, Canadian Alliance, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to debate Bill C-17, which is probably the third and perhaps fourth time that I have debated this legislation. It is interesting that in its third reincarnation it is getting better and that the government is bringing in some changes that have been identified, largely by the opposition. However, it is a concern to me, and I assume it is a concern to others, that this could have been dealt with a lot quicker had the government shown a willingness to let committees have meaningful input into legislation.

The transport committee, which I was sitting on at the time, gave great study to the issue of air safety and transportation safety and came up with some tremendous recommendations to the minister, who for the most part ignored them. We then saw a bill introduced that was nothing like the committee report.

The other concern I have is with the timing. At the time the bill was considered to be an emergency and sections of it were put in there because it was an emergent reaction to the disastrous events which occurred in the U.S., in New York City and Washington D.C., last year on September 11. Had the government been willing to allow members of the committee and even members of Parliament, through the committee process, to amend the existing legislation, the bill could have been put through the House months ago, before the House prorogued.

The government, through its insistence that only it and it alone will create legislation, has created a situation where this reaction to an emergency is no longer appropriate.

It is quite evident that the bill has been largely written by bureaucrats for bureaucratic reasons. It has put into an omnibus bill the purpose of which is no longer there. The agenda of the House is not that heavy. Therefore there is no reason why the bill could not have been broken down into appropriate sections and put before committees to be dealt with in an appropriate manner. This whole Keystone Kop approach to this legislation does not bode well for Canada.

I would like to show just how ridiculous it is by pointing out that on page 59, under the National Defence Act, section 16(1) is not even completed. It is missing some of the legislation. It ends with a sentence, which basically says, “the maintenance of a component of the Canadian Forces, called a special force, consisting of”, which is not complete. It is quite obvious that this legislation was written in haste and has not been edited properly as there are parts which seem to be missing.

One has to really question the reason why this omnibus bill is before us and why it has not been broken down into appropriate sections to be placed before the appropriate committees. I have to support my colleague from Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam who has put a motion before the House to have the bill broken down. It makes a whole lot of sense. It should certainly be passed by the House so that it can be dealt with in the appropriate manner that will find obvious errors because it has not been completed.

I would like to deal with some of the issues that are of concern.

One change made covers the concern raised by the opposition members on the 90 day or three month period where a minister could make an interim order which would not be checked by anybody. It is nice to see that has been reduced to 14 days to at least make it a little more current. However there is still a concern regarding the lack of accountability. There is no accountability for why the minister would make that interim order, that special order, and the reasons behind it to justify having done so in the first place.

Regarding controlled access for military zones, the government is limiting it to Halifax, Esquimalt and Nanoose Bay rather than the open-ended wherever it wants to designate those zones.

In looking through the legislation at least a couple of times, I do not see any specific reference to that. I do not see where that is itemized.The committee when it deals with this bill will have to go through it with a fine-toothed comb to make sure that what we are being told is in the legislation is actually there and is not left up to orders in council and other means to fill in the blanks.

The other aspect which I must say I am pleased to see in the legislation deals with reservists and how their jobs would be protected if they were called into action in the military. That is long past due and it is nice to see it.

Another aspect that is nice to see deals with air rage and hoaxes. These are concerns that should have been dealt with 13 months ago. These are important issues that could have been dealt with had the government handled the legislation in a more appropriate manner.

I have to say that the government only has itself to blame for its negligence in seeing that this bill was handled properly and written properly the first time. I would suggest that the government should depend less on bureaucrats to create public policy and should allow Parliament to be more involved in the process. It is Parliament's duty to create public policy. It is not the duty of the bureaucrats to create public policy.

It has to be reinforced time and again that it is in this House where public policy is created. It is in our committees created by the House where the flaws and the imperfections are identified so that legislation creating public policy can be made that much better. It has to be taken into account that we have allowed that process to be removed from the House of Commons.

Quite honestly, I will lay the blame where the blame must be laid. My colleagues on the backbench of the Liberal Party are the ones who have allowed Parliament to lose its right and its purpose of writing public policy. It is the Liberal backbenchers who have allowed the government to renege on its responsibility and to pass it on to the bureaucracy.

The legislation before us today is a prime example of what happens when the issues that are dealt with are not the issues of concern to the Canadian public, and that the way in which other issues are dealt with is certainly not the way in which Canadians would want them dealt with. The concerns of infringements on the rights of individuals, the concerns of the restrictions in the practice of our rights, the lack of accountability; all of these issues are a reflection of how a bureaucracy sees things differently, how it likes to protect itself from the scrutiny of the citizens and the politicians.

We have to get back to having the House of Commons more involved in the process of writing public policy and to having the bureaucrats administer the public policy that is written here in the House. One of the fundamental concerns I have is that this particular piece of legislation is definitely a reflection of how we have moved away from that.

I used one example of how there is a clause in this legislation which has not been completed and is missing information in it. How is that possible? How is it possible that a legal document, a piece of government legislation, a bill is brought before the House without even being completed, with missing sections and missing sentences?

My hope is that the government, through its small attempt today to democratize this place, will see that an important part of it is to allow the committees to do their work. Opposition members as well as government members should be allowed to bring in amendments to improve legislation, rather than the administrative branch of the government having to be the one to write and complete all legislation without amendments.

I hope the message will get through to the administrative branch of the government that change is not bad necessarily and that committees should be allowed to make the changes that are necessary to improve the legislation before them. I will end on that note with all the hope in the world that today we will see changes in the attitude of the administrative branch of the government.

[Deepak Obhrai, Canadian Alliance, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know my hon. colleague has worked very hard in her area of British Columbia and in the U.S.A. to create a better flow on the transportation corridor. She has worked to ensure that the flow of goods and people across our borders is trouble free and to enhance trade and good relations between our two nations. In her view, will Bill C-17 have any detrimental effect on what she has been working on in British Columbia?

[Val Meredith, Canadian Alliance, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that the bill will make a tremendous difference in our relationship with the United States in that all concerns will be erased and it will be just perfect but quite frankly, on reading the bill I do not get that feeling at all.

I get the feeling that some minor administrative changes have taken place where bureaucrats have tightened up some of the loose ends of legislation. There are 22 pieces of legislation covered in the bill. They deal with all kinds of issues from immigration and airline security to hazardous products and the Food and Drugs Act. It really is a catch-all to tidy up loose ends in a number of different areas.

It does not concentrate on those areas that are of concern to the security of Canada, that will reinforce a feeling of confidence by the Americans that we have looked after our own security to protect ourselves from those who would be a threat to our national security and therefore also a threat to the security of the United States of America.

Quite frankly, the bill does nothing to address that. It will make no difference at all to the fact that the Americans by their new policies at the border obviously are still concerned that Canada does not take seriously the threat of national security to ourselves, to our own country, let alone to the United States by our being its closest neighbour.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am especially happy to rise in this particular debate because the subject matter is so sensitive. It is dealing with the juxtaposition of the need for security versus the need to protect our basic civil liberties.

Why I am particularly glad to be participating in this debate in this place is because the debate is televised and this place is open. I think it is very important for parliamentarians when they address these very difficult issues that they be seen by Canadians to be facing those issues. That is one reason why I voted against the motion that was recently before the House. I think it is very important for Canadians always to see us in the open and transparent, as the previous speaker for the Canadian Alliance said. It is most important for MPs to not only stand to be counted, but to be seen to be taking positions on difficult subjects, whether it is in committee or in the House.

I have to say I found it very difficult to see that particular motion that I just alluded to pass. It endorses a form of secrecy that I cannot condone.

The portion of the bill that is before the House that I wish to address is the portion dealing with the collection of data from airline passenger manifests.There have been a lot of comments regarding the bill in the House. The member for Churchill spoke and said she was afraid that this was establishing a pattern whereby the rights of citizens would be compromised. She said the data would be collected and widely distributed.

I actually challenged the member for Churchill in the questions and comments period. I pointed out that in this particular piece of legislation that we have before us, the Minister of Transport has the right to collect a wide variety of data from the passenger manifests, where people are coming from, the number on their ticket, what travel agency they used. The list is in the schedule. I think there are about 40 items that are pointed out that the bill gives the authority to collect in the interests of screening for national security purposes.

The member for Churchill failed to note that the legislation makes it very clear that this information is to be collected only for the purposes of national security and it is not to be distributed. Indeed, the bill goes on to say that the information after being collected is to be destroyed.

On the one hand it would appear that the bill has decent safeguards to make sure that this information that is collected on people travelling in this country is not distributed widely for reasons other than on account of terrorism.

However, what most people have failed to note in the debate is that there is a law already on the books that indeed was given royal assent in October 2001. It allows the customs officials to collect precisely this kind of information from the passenger manifests and there is no limitation on its distribution. This is a very curious thing. This particular clause began in Bill S-23 which passed the Senate. For those who are watching, a bill with an “S” refers to a bill that originates in the Senate.

Bill S-23 amended the Canada Customs Act and permitted customs officials not just to collect data pertaining to import and export, but to collect data for the first time ever from passenger manifests. It is section 108.7 in the current customs legislation. The section specifically allowed the government to collect advance booking information, as a matter of fact, all the information that is contained in the legislation before us, plus some.

It is an interesting coincidence because this amendment to the Canada Customs Act was proposed before September 11 and was passed after September 11. We have the peculiar situation where the legislation before us right now does not go anywhere near the hazard, shall we say, to civil liberties that already exists.

I would urge the legislative committee that reviews this legislation to pay careful heed to the fact that clause 107.1 in the Customs Act gives this right of sharing of this kind of information with the other police and intelligence organizations. We should consider at this time whether this is such a good idea.

I will note that Bill C-17, the bill before us, does take the information collected from the passenger manifests. It also has a clause that amends the Privacy Act that would allow that information to be distributed to foreign powers. What it boils down to is that between this bill and the Customs Act, individuals arriving in Canada or leaving Canada, not only by aircraft but by any kind of conveyance or public transport, the pertinent data to their travel plans can be collected and distributed among the police authorities. Indeed this would allow the information to be distributed among foreign countries as well.

Mr. Speaker, there is a fundamental principle and this is why we have these debates on these delicate topics. The foreign minister would appreciate many of the things I am saying because of course he is right in the vice, shall we say, of trying to balance civil liberties against national security considerations while there is pressure from our allies, notably the United States, who want to see Canada have in place monitoring and screening regimes that can identify threats to not only our security but to the security of the nations around us that may be receiving people from our country.

The question becomes an ethical question that we must examine very carefully. Here it is; it is quite simple. Is there a different right of privacy for citizens or people in Canada to their personal information while they remain in Canada, and in the interests of national security and the threat of foreign terrorism should there be another level of privacy on personal information for people who are leaving Canada or coming into Canada?

The border may be the place in which the privacy considerations that the privacy commissioner is so concerned about should apply, but perhaps because of the new world threat we must consider that personal information, once it leaves our border, once it is beyond the 200 mile limit, becomes available and accessible to the various authorities. I am not talking about just our civil authorities but international authorities as well.

This is the kind of issue that more and more Parliament must debate because we walk such a fine line under the pressure of national security, the foreign terrorism threat, and even more than that, the pressure from our ally to the south who is still hurting from the wound of September 11, and is still lashing out, sometimes in very inappropriate ways, to ensure that the borders of the United States are secure.

We must pay serious attention to that. It is in our interest to pay serious attention to that. However on the other hand we have a wonderful tradition of protecting civil liberties in this country that goes back to Confederation. There is no country in the world, I am sure, that is more admired for the desire to uphold personal liberties than Canada, so we walk a very delicate line and it is important to have this kind of debate in the House on this kind of legislation.

I will conclude by returning to my original point. When we discuss issues this sensitive, it is so important for all Canadians to be able to hear us speak of these issues and see us struggle with the choices. We try to find a balance and we may be wrong in the end, because what we are in this place are the people who are trusted by all Canadians to make these hard choices. We are only human.

We might make wrong choices. It is terribly important for all Canadians, through the cameras that are in the House, to see us at work, whether we are at work here and struggling with these decisions in the House or in committee. Mr. Speaker, as you know, one positive reform to the committee process is that television is going to come into all the committee processes. Canadians will not only be able to see all the debates in the House, but they will be able to see the debates in committee when we consider legislation clause by clause.

I would make a final appeal to at least this MP, whether we are in the House or whether we are in committee, whether we are voting or only speaking, we should be there for Canadians to see.

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-17 dealing with public safety. During the last session, the Bloc Quebecois pointed out a number of concerns, flaws and specious arguments regarding Bill C-55.

Today, we can see that some adjustments have been made. The provisions dealing with controlled access military zones are one example. We are pleased to see that this controversial section that was a real problem has been completely withdrawn from the revised bill, thanks of course to the continued efforts of the Bloc Quebecois during the last session.

Nevertheless, there are still serious concerns with regard to several provisions of Bill C-17, which, obviously, have not been revised, let alone withdrawn. This is the case with interim orders. Even though the time provided for the tabling in Parliament and approval by cabinet has been reduced, there is still no advance verification for compliance, and that is cause for concern.

We are also concerned with the provisions dealing with the sharing of information. In this regard, it is clear that the proposed changes are seriously flawed. It seems that the effects of these provisions go way beyond the intent of fighting terrorism, and this is why we are against the principle of this bill.

I will deal with the flaws stemming from the provisions dealing with the amount of time the information can be kept. As clauses 4.81 and the following ones are currently drafted, Bill C-17 would allow the Commissioner of the RCMP and the Director of CSIS, as well as the Minister of Transport, to obtain information on passengers directly from the airlines and operators of reservations systems.

The bill also provides that information may be demanded in cases of imminent threats to transportation security.

This is even more serious when it comes to CSIS, since it deals with threats against Canada, and not only against transportation security. The previous bill, Bill C-55, provided that information may be required for the purposes of the “identification of persons for whom a warrant has been issued”. Subclause 4.81(6) of Bill C-17 states that this information must be destroyed within seven days after it is provided. However, it must be specified that it will not be done systematically since this deadline might be extended should it be reasonably necessary to do so for the purposes of transportation security or the investigation of threats to the security of Canada. Once again, the scope is extremely broad and will be certainly very difficult to limit in an appropriate and transparent manner.

The Bloc Quebecois wants to remind members that the privacy commissioner issued a letter on May 6, 2002, in which he voiced his concerns regarding Bill C-55. The commissioner mentioned among other things that he was concerned by the fact that the RCMP and CSIS could obtain personal information.

The commissioner expressed reservations regarding the provisions that would allow the RCMP to use the personal information of all airline passengers to search for individuals subject to outstanding warrants for any offence punishable by imprisonment for five years or more.

The commissioner also expressed reservations concerning the fact that the RCMP and CSIS would be able to retain the personal information of passengers in order to search for possible suspicious travel patterns. In the case of the use of the information by the RCMP, the definition of the mandate was a problem. Indeed, provisions of Bill C-55 allowed the RCMP to gather information for the purpose of searching for individuals subject to outstanding warrants. This clearly went beyond the stated purpose of public safety enhancement.

Moreover, the commissioner had concerns regarding the provision allowing the RCMP to release information on individuals subject to an arrest warrant. The commissioner suggested that these elements should be eliminated from the bill.

It is easy to conclude that the government tried to tighten up these provisions, but that it has failed.

In fact, even if the RCMP no longer has the statutory power to gather information for the sole purpose of tracking someone subject to a warrant, it can still provide police officers with the information gathered pursuant to Bill C-17 if it has reason to believe that it will be useful for executing a warrant under specific legislation.

The way the government is distorting the real purpose of Bill C-17, by introducing such provisions for the sake of public safety, is truly unbelievable.

For instance, it is up to the RCMP to determine when a situation becomes a threat to transportation security, which gives them the right to ask an airline for information about the passengers. It is not wise to let the police give its own interpretation of some provisions that will benefit them.

I am concerned that these provisions are not subject to any review mechanism. It is like giving carte blanche to the RCMP. We give them carte blanche to enfoce these provisions, but also to interpret what these provisions mean, which is quite worrisome. Parliamentarians seem to have backed away from their duty to supervise these things. We are very far from the transparency we were hoping for.

What is more, once the information is gathered, there is nothing stopping from the RCMP from keeping it, provided the reasons for so doing are recorded. Once again, I wonder about the degree of transparency this procedure is going to lead to.

The government has tightened up the definition of warrant. In the previous version, it might be an outstanding warrant for any offence punishable under federal law by imprisonment for five years or more. Now the definition stipulates that there will be a regulation stipulating exactly what crimes are involved.

I am still skeptical, when a bill assigns that much power through regulations. The effect of this is to strip Parliament of some of its powers of control and monitoring, and diminishes our role as parliamentarians. How many times have I risen in this House to refer to our diminished powers in this Parliament?

As for the second concern expressed by the Privacy Commissioner, this addressed serious reservations about the information gathered being kept afterward.

The seven-day period for which the RCMP and CSIS can retain information is excessive. A 48-hour period seems more than sufficient.

As well, the fact that this information can be retained indefinitely as a security measure is disconcerting. It needs to have limits set. I am referring to transparency here. It seems that this government has absolutely no grasp of what that concept means, which is deplorable.

Neither of the changes the privacy commissioner proposed has been included.

As a result, on November 1, 2002, the commissioner issued a press release in which he describes the changes between the present Bill C-17 and the former Bill C-55 as minor.

He feels that the provisions in clause 4.82 of both bills would give the RCMP and CSIS unrestricted access to the personal information held by airlines about all Canadians and all Quebeckers travelling on domestic as well as international flights.

He also voices misgivings about the fact that the RCMP would be expressly empowered to use this information to seek out persons wanted on warrants for Criminal Code offences that have nothing to do with terrorism, transportation security or national security.

He added that, in Canada, citizens are not required to identify themselves to police unless they are being arrested or they are carrying out a licensed activity such as driving.

The Bloc Quebecois has often argued for the fundamental right to anonymity with regard to the state. The commissioner talked about it in his press release.

Since air passengers in Canada are required to identify themselves to airlines as a condition of air travel and since clause 4.82 would give the RCMP unrestricted access to the passenger information obtained by airlines, this would set a privacy invasive precedent.

In other words, requiring passengers to identify themselves to the police would go against the right to anonymity. This is the point the privacy commissioner made.

Lastly, the commissioner stated that the proposed changes insult the intelligence of Canadians and Quebeckers.

According to the commissioner, the changes that have been made in this provision in Bill C-17 do nothing to address the fundamental issues that are at stake and that are linked to the principle of anonymity.

In his press release, the commissioner mentioned that the government now proposes to have regulations limiting the Criminal Code offence warrants for which the RCMP will be searching.

The commissioner insists that such a measure, as it stands, does nothing to address the fundamental point of principle that the police have no business using this extraordinary access to personal information to search for people wanted on warrants for any offences unrelated to terrorism.

According to the commissioner, in Bill C-17 the government has removed the “identification of persons for whom a warrant has been issued” as a “purpose” for accessing air passenger information under the legislation.

I agree with the commissioner that this is a disingenuous measure, since the RCMP would remain empowered to match this information against a database of persons wanted on warrants and to use such matches to bring about arrests.

Yes, it is true that all this insults the intelligence of Canadians to suggest, as the government did in its press release accompanying the bill, that the RCMP may “incidentally” come upon individuals wanted on Criminal Code warrants, if the police were to match names of passengers against a database of individuals wanted on Criminal Code warrants. Again, we have concerns about how the RCMP will interpret the word “incidentally”. It is a matter of transparency.

Finally, the commissioner calls on parliamentarians. I agree with him when he says it is up to us all to make the crucially important privacy issues that are at stake known and understood. We must therefore get the point across to all the ministers and top government officials who will be involved in the application of Bill C-17.

In this respect, the Bloc Quebecois has always been on the front line in standing up for the rights of all the citizens of Quebec and Canada.

The government amendments regarding the powers of the RCMP and CSIS when it comes to collecting information on airline passengers are still much too broad and confusing.

Even though it appears that the proposed amendments correct certain flaws, the problems raised by the Privacy Commissioner remain as significant and pressing.

This is why we intend to pursue our efforts in the House of Commons so that the rights of every individual are taken into account in government decisions. Consequently, we are opposed to these new broader powers given to the police.

Members should keep in mind the fact that the new data bank that the RCMP and CSIS will have the authority to create will be in addition to the new data bank created by the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency.

Now I want to draw mebers' attention to a second aspect of this bill that is of concern to us, namely interim orders.

The bill would amend 10 acts or so to enable the minister to make interim orders.

We took a close look at clause 66 of this bill, which amends the Food and Drugs Act. The provisions dealing with other acts are similar.

The new section 30.1 of the Food and Drug Act states that:

The Minister may make an interim order that contains any provision that may be contained in a regulation made under this Act if the Minister believes that immediate action is required to deal with a significant risk, direct or indirect, to health, safety or the environment.

30.1(2) An interim order has effect from the time that it is made but ceases to have effect on the earliest of

(a) 14 days after it is made, unless it is approved by the Governor in Council,

(b) the day on which it is repealed,

(c) the day on which a regulation made under this Act, that has the same effect as the interim order, comes into force, and (d) one year after the interim order is made or any shorter period that may be specified in the interim order.

30.1(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence consisting of a contravention of an interim order that, at the time of the alleged contravention, had not been published in the Canada Gazette unless it is proved that, at the time of the alleged contravention, the person had been notified of the interim order or reasonable steps had been taken to bring the purport of the interim order to the notice of those persons likely to be affected by it.

30.1(4) An interim order (a) is exempt from the application of sections 3, 5 and 11 of the Statutory Instruments Act; and (b) shall be published in the Canada Gazette within 23 days after it is made.

30.1(6) A copy of each interim order must be tabled in each House of Parliament within 15 days after it is made.

Section 30.1(4) provides that an interim order is exempt from the application of section 3 of the Statutory Instruments Act.

Section 3 of the Statutory Instruments Act provides that a proposed regulation shall be forwarded to the Clerk of the Privy Council, who shall ensure that the proposed regulation is authorized by the statute pursuant to which it is to be made and “does not trespass unduly on existing rights and freedoms and is not, in any case, inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights”.

In our opinion, these provisions are dangerous. These amendments are made with the objective of giving ministers the power to issue interim orders.

We can only conclude that the previous examination of orders, based on the criteria that Parliament adopted for statutory instruments, is set aside.

We feel that this is the first democratic deficit. It is important to point out that hon. members do not have a say in the process to adopt regulations, before they come into effect.

In the vast majority of cases, the Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations examines the regulations once they are in effect, often several months after they were adopted.

Since interim orders are in effect for a limited period of time, the committee's review may often not be conducted soon enough, which is obvious but ,more importantly, deplorable. Afterwards, when the minister applies the amendments to the Aeronautics Act, he will be able to delegate to a public servant the power to make interim orders.

In this case, we are disappointed to see that no elected official will be involved in the adoption process. In other words, this is a second democratic deficit.

We were pleased by the fact that the federal government finally agreed to the requests of the Bloc Quebecois and deleted from its new Bill C-17 on public safety the provisions relating to the establishment of controlled access military zones in the former Bill C-55. However, we remain opposed to the principle of this bill, because of the provisions on interim orders and because of the provisions relating to the RCMP and CSIS, for the reasons I mentioned earlier in my speech.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton, Ontario Hydro; the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, employment insurance; the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, foreign affairs.

[Lynne Yelich, Canadian Alliance, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member as he talked about a democratic deficit. Besides the regulations and implementing changes to the Aeronautics Act, I was wondering if there are any other places where he has noticed a democratic deficit.

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, during our research on this bill, we found that there are at least 10 other pieces of legislation that pose a problem with regard to democracy. Why is that? An interim order is already a lack of democracy, why?

An interim order, as proposed by Bill C-17, gives a minister the authority to decide on his own whether there is an emergency and to apply the new provisions.

Usually, when one makes an order, a regulation--an interim order is considered to be a regulation--in order for it to be approved it has to be submitted to the Privy Council to make sure that the enabling statute allows such a regulation to be made, in other words to determine whether or not this interim order can be made. This step will be bypassed. Something even more important will be bypassed, namely the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and its declaration.

So an interim order will be made. In other words, a minister will decide it will apply to a given area or for reasons that lead the minister to believe there is an emergency. Will it only apply to transportation? We will see.

This is the problem with regard to democracy. When a regulation is made, as we know, members do not see it. When a law is being drafted, parliamentarians get to vote on the bill. But in the case of a regulation, parliamentarians never see it. In other words, it is the civil servants who draft everything that governs us.

In the field of the airline industry, this is serious. Apart from the fact that civil servants will be allowed to make an order, the minister himself will make an order anyway and the regulation or order will not go before the Privy Council to make sure that the enabling statue allows it and that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom is being respected.

This is a huge lack of democracy. The bill will allow 10 ministers--not only the minister in charge of security or the minister of Defence--to make orders and to bypass the review that should be done when dealing with legislation on statutory instruments, namely interim orders.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Châteauguay on his excellent speech. I totally agree with him. I am opposed to the bill before us.

Over the last month and in recent weeks, we have seen what has happened at the Canada-U.S. border, the abuse by U.S. customs officers.

I would like to remind members of the infamous HRDC file—and I see the former minister over there. That file was supposed to be destroyed and it was later found out that it never was destroyed. It contained a lot of information on Quebeckers and Canadians who had dealings with Human Resources Development Canada.

My question will deal more specifically with the bill before us in the context of the statement made by the privacy commissioner. Personally, I would tend to have a lot of faith in the Privacy Commissioner since he is an expert in this field and since he was appointed to examine legislation and ensure that privacy is respected.

The privacy commissioner tells us, among other things, that he has done everything possible to convince the government and Parliament that this bill, as it stands right now, makes no sense.

I would like my colleague to say a few more words on the privacy commissioner's statement. Unfortunately, he will not have time to elaborate. I would like him to comment on the privacy commissioner's statement.

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Matapédia—Matane for his question.

The beginning of my speech was quite precise in that regard. Because of my background, it is obviously easy for me to talk about the problem of the Privy Council and interim orders.

However, we cannot ignore such an important element being created by this bill. Unfortunately, it is not creating something new, it is only repeating the same mistakes. As I was saying earlier, in the case of the old Bill C-55, the Privacy Commissioner came to talk to us about all the nonsense related to the creation of personal information lists on all Canadians and Quebecers.

At what level can these lists be used? When an airline company draws up such important lists, there is an obligation to provide this information. There is an obligation to give this information to the airline company. In a roundabout way, the government is saying that it has changed something. Under the act, it was possible to check what was on the list and to see the names of suspected people and of those subject to an arrest warrant. Checks could be made immediately.

The legislation, per se, has not changed at all. We were told it was amended, but everything will be done through the regulations. Once again, I come back to the regulations. Once again, I come back to interim orders. A regulation is the same thing. A regulation will be put together by a bureaucrat who will decide under which offence the police, CSIS and the RCMP, will be given access to the list of personal information. This could well be your personal information, Mr. Speaker, or that of my colleague from Matapédia—Matane, or of any member or even minister. Any travel, domestic or international, requires that information be given to the airlines. One can see how initially, after September 11, this was useful. RCMP officers will be able to look at the list from time to time to see who has committed an offence and if this new regulation applies.

Once again, the regulation has not been drafted and Bill C-17 is not specific. Once again, we are handing over power to bureaucrats.

Only one part of this bill is very specific regarding information and privacy. It is a very important part. The Bloc Quebecois led the charge on this to protect the individual rights of citizens. Our freedom and democracy are being put on indefinite hold. We are in the process of altering important aspects of our society. I hope that the Liberals worked to build a free country. Now we are being watched. We have heard talk of “big brother”. We are in the process of giving the police tremendous powers. They will be the ones who decide when they want to use this list and for what purpose, perhaps even to arrest people who are not at all involved in terrorism.

This bill is a response to the events of September 11. However, it goes beyond that and it seeks to give far too much power, once again, to the RCMP and CSIS. We are well aware of what CSIS can do. We have already had a taste of it in Quebec.