Debates of Nov. 5th, 2002

Public Safety Act, 2002

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis-Et-Chutes-De-La-Chaudière, QC]

Madam Speaker, the bill before us somehow replaces Bill C-55 or is its successor. When the previous bill was introduced, the then privacy commissioner appeared before the Human Rights Commission in Geneva and expressed concerns regarding several provisions of the bill. Now the bill before us today is being criticized by the new privacy commissioner.

I would like to put the following question to the hon. member. He believes the changes made to the previous legislation are minimal and that its flaws are not being addressed. He believes the government did not take them into account and he is relying on parliamentarians to ensure that those changes are made with regard, of course, to the whole question everybody agrees on, namely the war on terrorism. The bill is off target. This is mainly what we have against it. It is too broad and as a result it encroaches on everybody's privacy.

I would like to know what the member thinks of the criticism made by the privacy commissioner.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Erie—Lincoln, ON]

Madam Speaker, we all know that it is the responsibility of the privacy commissioner to scrutinize all legislation and to comment on it. He will make those representations to the committee that will hear this bill.

In redrafting and instituting the bill again, the government tried to address some of the issues that the privacy commissioner the first time around had expressed. We welcome other comments and if amendments are necessary they will be advanced and supported.

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

Madam Speaker, I know that the hon. member opposite would agree that there is potential for abuse when scrutiny is lacking and there is a potential for corruption when scrutiny is lacking. One only has to look at the last eight months of government for evidence of such.

Part 12 of the bill deals with the Marine Transportation Security Act and is an example of how this type of legislation could result in some very disturbing situations if left unchecked. This part gives the minister unfettered power to make contributions or grants in respect of actions that enhance the security of vessels at marine facilities. The wording of this part of the bill is quite vague and it allows the government the ability to fund almost anything it wants under the guise of improving security at ports.

For instance, could improvements to wharfs or docking facilities that had a minor security element to it allow the government to provide grants and contributions that would not receive the scrutiny of this place? There is a concern from a practical level that this type of legislation cloaks and hides information about the government's actions around something as fundamental and as important as a port.

Does the hon. member share that concern with respect to putting unfettered power to hide information under the guise of it being done for security purposes? Is that not something for which there should be greater scrutiny at all levels, including the committee level?

[John Maloney, Liberal, Erie—Lincoln, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows that under that act there was a prohibition of expenditures for ports under certain exceptions. An exception would be emergencies. Certainly coming from the Maritimes, the member is most appreciative of how vital the ports are to the country's economy and if they were crippled, how difficult if would be for us. It would be the same for the land border crossings in my area if the infrastructure was taken out, such as one of the bridges crossing the Niagara River in the Niagara region.

The minister certainly is warranted in having powers to take extraordinary measures to protect the security of those facilities. Assuredly the cynic in us all could say that perhaps these unneeded non-emergency expenditures could be undertaken for a port under this guise, but I think not. If my memory serves me rightly, the fund is roughly $60 million and not an awful lot of money could be squandered, as the member is suggesting could happen.

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill.

This bill has important ramifications for our national security and for our international reputation. I want to address both of those issues. I looked at the bill carefully. We are all well familiar with the admonition that tells us that anytime an individual or a nation is willing to trade an element of freedom for an element of security, one runs the risk of losing both. When we talk about giving up freedoms, it is something about which we have to be very cautious.

Obviously in the global environment in which we now live, there is a growing number of people, a growing network of individuals who are intent on the destruction of those civilizations and those nations who embrace freedom and democracy, and unfortunately we are forced to consider these questions.

I want to look specifically at items related to biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. I am listening carefully, as I hope others are, to concerns about the loss of civil liberties and so we will want to look at those very carefully as we continue to walk through this bill.

I particularly want to reference part 8 which amends the Export and Import Permits Act. These amendments give the government the power to create an exports control list. A list like that is necessary to control the export of weapons and munitions, as well as articles of a strategic nature that could be used to the detriment of both Canadian and international security. Canada has committed to this course of action in numerous international settings. We have done that for the purpose of preventing, among other things, the proliferation of missile technology, as well as biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, something with which we all have to be concerned.

The measures in part 8 of the bill are also a response to Resolution 1373 that was passed by the United Nations Security Council. Among other things, that resolution declared that all countries should contribute to efforts to eliminate the supply of weapons to terrorists and we are involved in that with a keen and careful eye to that balance of what this means in terms of loss of freedoms.

In addition to these international obligations, Canada has agreed not to export certain goods that it obtains from the United States to other countries that might use those particular goods improperly and again, contribute to regional or international instability. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has expressly given direction to consider international peace, security and stability. These are the criteria we have to look at when we are looking at the export or transfer permits on these particular goods.

The next area in which Parliament needs to be looking toward is part 23, which reads in part:

1. The purpose of this Act is to fulfil Canada's obligations under the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction, which entered into force on March 26, 1975, as amended from time to time pursuant to Article XI of that Convention.

All these steps are essential to reaffirming Canada's commitment to international security and our allies are looking for us to do that.

The question I have is why was this not done earlier? What has been taking us so long? I believe the minister is concerned about these things, but I find it unusual to discuss in 2002 the implementation of a treaty which was signed in 1975. That is almost 30 years ago.

It makes me wonder if the government is not fearful of its own legislation. Is this a deliberate slowdown process that we have been looking at for 30 years? Is the government in fact worried about loss of freedoms and civil liberties? Is there something the government is not telling us about what it is worried about in the implications of this bill because we are now looking at implementing a treaty that was signed some 30 years ago?

The treaty was signed during Prime Minister Trudeau's first term and it might be implemented during the present Prime Minister's third and possibly final term. The Canadian Alliance transport critic was not even born when the treaty was ratified and 30 years later, it has still not been implemented.

The government has had plenty of reason to act on this convention. As a matter of fact, on June 29, 1996 the G-7 summit in Lyon, France recognized the need to “implement the convention, including the establishment of an effective verification mechanism”.

We all have seen the blatant abuse of verification relating to Saddam Hussein. We know the importance of having an effective verification system. That was in 1996. We are proud members, I thought, of the G-7, yet we still drag our feet on this.

The attacks of September 11 have reminded the world of the need to keep weapons inputs, especially biological inputs, out of the hands of those states, groups or individuals who might use them to create the tools of destruction. Thirteen months later, since initially looking at this legislation, the government has still not begun implementation.

The Security Council has urged action on this file. Resolution 1373 has passed, among other things. That resolution declared that all countries should contribute to the efforts to eliminate the supply of weapons to terrorists.

It does make me speculate that if Canada had agreed a long time ago to stop its export of these input agents for biological and toxin based weapons, Canadian defence companies may have had more success in bidding for contracts in the United States. I believe it is reasonable to assume that the United States has been hesitant to award research and development deals to Canadian contractors out of fear that the R and D could be exported and end up in the hands of our enemies. That is a reasonable expectation. It shows what delay will cost us in terms of investment and jobs, let alone security.

Saddam Hussein's well-publicized chemical gassing of his own people should have indicated to our government the need to implement the convention, but the government has done no such thing. Even from the point of view of how it might affect us in a technological or commercial way, according to the Department of National Defence policy directive:

Canada has never had and does not now possess any biological weapons (or toxin based weapons), and will not develop, produce, acquire, stockpile or use such weapons.

Given that, we have to wonder what are the factors, what is the government worried about in terms of implementation.

This is strange. We do not have weapons of mass destruction, toxin-based weapons or biological weapons. Canada has nothing to lose by enacting the bill before us. The government does not have any excuse for the delay. It must get moving with the provisions of this bill, which will affect the transportation and sale of these things.

Our allies expect us to act. When they do not see action, they wonder about our commitment. We have already lost enough influence around the diplomatic table with our severe reductions to funding in national defence. We have lost influence at NATO. Let us not continue to lose influence by dragging our feet on something of this importance.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis-Et-Chutes-De-La-Chaudière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the speech of the former leader of the Canadian Alliance on this bill. I was under the impression that his comments had more to do with foreign policy and support for the United States, but I want to ask him about the legislation before us.

Does the hon. member not think, like the privacy commissioner, who is an independent observer, that there are many violations of individual rights, including in the area of personal information? Everyone agrees in the case of a person who is wanted and who belongs to a terrorist group. However, the government wants to broaden the scope of these powers, so that ordinary citizens will be subjected to excessive information gathering. At least, this is what the privacy commissioner says.

I would like to hear what the hon. member has to say about this specific aspect of the bill and about the privacy commissioner's opinion.

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member is particularly sensitive as regards the United States, because I never mentioned that country.

I did say at the beginning of my comments that I am concerned about a loss of individual freedoms. This is why we must review this bill very carefully. But it is also important to realize that it is not individuals who produce weapons of mass destruction, toxin-based weapons or biological weapons at home. I specifically referred to companies and to rules for these companies and, sometimes, for the individuals involved in the transportation and sale of the products used to build weapons of mass destruction.

[Diane Ablonczy, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, as we are all aware, the fact that the United States has made a move to photograph, fingerprint and otherwise vet people attempting to enter the U.S., including people from Canada, has become a hot issue. I know it is a difficult issue, but I think Canadians would be interested to know what my colleague's take is on this. He is the Canadian Alliance foreign affairs critic and this is a very hot issue. I wonder if my colleague could take a minute and give us his thoughts on that particular issue.

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question. I put the same question to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and did not get a direct answer. Last week, with considerable chest thumping, he seemed to indicate that he had individually, faster than a speeding bullet and leaping buildings at a single bound, turned around a massive U.S. policy related to people in Canada. Then a day or two later we found out that maybe nothing has changed and that the minister's diplomatic muscles perhaps are not as large as he was indicating to us.

For that reason, I put that question to him. We will be able to look at that and dissect the question from my colleague once we know what it is we are facing. We do not even know that yet. We cannot get it from the minister and I am waiting for that.

[Diane Ablonczy, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, today we are debating a new bill that has been introduced in the House of Commons, Bill C-17, but really the name of it is the public security act. As others have mentioned, this is the third public security act that the government has introduced in the House of Commons in this Parliament. We find it a little odd that the government has been so unable to get such an important piece of legislation right. It should not take three tries for the government to address such clear cut issues as safety and security and public safety for Canadians, but here we are again, with three strikes and the third strike on this particular legislation.

There are a number of provisions in the bill which a number of colleagues also have mentioned. One of the most controversial is the giving of airline passenger lists to the government and also the giving of immigration information to other governments, foreign governments. It is very interesting that our country has been so dilatory and so slow in addressing these important issues. As others have pointed out, the United States, the direct target of a terrorist attack last September, introduced a bill to deal with these security issues only 10 days after the after the attack on the World Trade Center. The bill was actually passed into law eight weeks later.

Other governments, especially those most directly concerned, have been very effective and very prompt in dealing with these key issues. We here in Canada, after over a year since the terrorist threat became very real to us here in North America, are still trying to get something acceptable to legislators through the House.

One of the interesting things about the bill is that it really lacks specificity in so many areas. Although it mentions dealing with health issues such as hazardous products and protection of food sources and water sources, although it talks about transportation issues, and although it talks about protection of our navigable waters and the environment, the fact is that there are very few specifics about precisely how this protection would be put into place. In fact, the bill relies very heavily on what are called interim orders. An interim order can be issued by one of four ministers, and presumably in a time of crisis or need these ministers can step forward and issue an interim order.

The problem with that, of course, is that it leaves a lot of uncertainty about what actually can and will be done in circumstances where our health, our food, our water or the safety of our transportation system is under attack. We do not really know what the government has in mind in order to take steps to protect us or to deal with those situations. My guess is that the government does not know either and that this kind of policy is going to be made up on the fly should circumstances dictate.

This seems to me to be an extremely poor way to administer Canadians' affairs. It is true that we cannot exhaustively prepare for every eventuality, but surely, as the U.S. and other countries have done, there can be a great deal more certainty and a great deal more detail as to process, procedure and the resources that will be called upon in some of the most obvious circumstances. We criticize the government for saying that it will make it up when the time comes. That is just not acceptable for Canadians. Also, this kind of approach delegates very large powers into the hands of ministers, which is not in accordance with our democracy and our parliamentary precedents. The government needs to fix this. There will be amendments brought forward for that purpose.

As we also know from listening to the debate, there has been a lot of criticism about sharing passenger lists and immigration information with the government and with other governments. I think it is fair to say that some of this information sharing is just sensible, but it is sensible only within the context of our purpose to protect Canada from terrorism. Strangely enough, the legislation is silent on that purpose to a troubling degree and leaves the door open for information sharing willy-nilly at the discretion of different people, which makes both legislators and Canadians very uneasy.

Our recommendation is that if we are going to share this kind of personal information it should be for a very narrow, very specific purpose and for that alone. I think if that amendment were made to the bill we would find a lot less opposition to the wide-ranging scope that information sharing now has.

As the immigration critic for the Canadian Alliance, I would like to address a couple of immigration issues that have come up in the bill. There is of course this information sharing that the immigration minister can undertake with provinces, with foreign governments and with international organizations for “national security, the defence of Canada or the conduct of international affairs”. As I mentioned just a moment ago, such a broad window, actually a doorway, for the minister to throw information about is simply troubling to many Canadians. We would ask that it be restricted to really protecting Canadians from terrorism and not be so broadly defined.

In one of the previous iterations of this public security act, there was a provision that those who engaged in people smuggling would be given large fines. This provision has been put into the new Immigration Act. The problem is not that the sanctions for people smuggling are too small but that they are never applied. People smugglers are not pursued and thus are not caught. Of course a lot of the time the kingpins are out of harm's way while very low level followers do all the work. There really is a need to be more effective in dealing with people smugglers.

Also of course there was a provision in the previous bill to allow certain individuals to be detained without warrant until they satisfy authorities of their identity. There is a real problem here. Many asylum seekers do arrive in Canada without documents. Often these people are smuggled in by international crime gangs and yet they are allowed entry without any system of tracking or following up. They are supposed to appear at a refugee hearing but over 25% of them do not even bother to show up. These are some of the concerns that have led our U.S. neighbour to become more stringent in its procedures along the border, but they are also concerns for Canadians. Therefore, on the immigration side there needs to be a more effective way of dealing with people who arrive at our borders with no documentation or with patently fraudulent documentation so as not to allow these people to enter our society until their identities have been ascertained in some way. In our view, the government has a real duty to Canadians to enact legislation that protects our security.

Although the legislation is a big step in the right direction, we think it has deficiencies. I am hoping the House will address those in amendments to the bill during the legislative process.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I begin my remarks by reminding the House of the situation in the days following September 11. I remember the Prime Minister saying that, in order to defeat terrorism, it was especially important not to restrict our rights and freedoms as Canadians and Quebeckers, otherwise it would be a great victory for terrorism.

That is what the Prime Minister said, and all cabinet ministers and Liberal members sang the same tune, often I admit with the support of the opposition, which called for prudence.

This all took place before the visit of Tom Ridge, the new U.S. homeland security advisor, and that of U.S. attorney general, John Ashcroft.

I can see these two prominent and very influential American figures arriving. I remember the meetings they had with the ministers primarily concerned, who asked them “What are you planning to do? You are our neighbours”. I even remember going on television, on CPAC, at the time and announcing that Canadian sovereignty was likely to come under attack in the near future.

There was soon nothing left of Prime Minister's fine words, and we were presented with a series of bills that restrict our freedoms.

I also remind the House that a few months later, the government tabled its budget, in which we could see a very significant increase in the amounts earmarked for security. The RCMP was more or less given carte blanche in the budget. I remember also a very modest increase in the defence budget, while $7.7 billion was allocated to various agencies and police forces responsible for the safety of Canadians.

A lot has happened since, yet the Canadian government's direction has remained unchanged. What matters to the government right now is to reassure the Americans. I must also admit that, on the basis of the latest media accounts, I find that the Canadian government is far from successful. I would say that we have a very poor reputation right now in the U.S., where they have gone overboard obviously in restricting freedoms and would want us to be more like them and go even further.

This bill already goes too far in the eyes of some parties here in the House. The bill has evolved: first there was Bill C-42, then Bill C-55, and now we are studying Bill C-17. Some interesting things have happened. This is an omnibus bill that deals with various other Canadian laws, laws that we have to amend. I would like to focus on three aspects, particularly the scope of the bill with respect to national defence, immigration and privacy.

With respect to national defence, personally, I think that the fact that the controlled access military zones were removed is a great victory for the Bloc Quebecois. To the best of my knowledge, we were the first to argue against this, to say that it made no sense that in a given city, any city, Quebec City for example, with the naval reserve at the port, or the Saint-Jean military base, in my riding, a zone could be extended wherever the government wanted and for however long it wanted, based on “reasonable grounds”, to use the wording of the bill at the time. The freedom of those inside such a zone would be severely restricted.

People could even be stopped within the zone without knowing it, because the minister could take several weeks before designating the zone. It could be designated within cabinet by the minister, and then, the population could be informed by public notice two weeks later. In the meantime, people could be arrested for doing things they are not allowed to do under the legislation.

The Bloc Quebecois made an impressive offensive against this aspect of the bill from the start, and we know the rest. Parliament prorogued and then we had a new Speech from the Throne.

The bill, which died on the Order Paper, has now been dusted off, with a few changes, admittedly. The government dropped the controlled access military zones, even though it has kept the right to designate certain zones by order in council. According to information that I have, the ports of Halifax, Esquimault Harbour and Nanoose Bay are now controlled access military zones.

At the time, the government's argument was--I remember quite well--“We cannot allow a repeat of what happened to the USS Cole in Yemen”.

Members will recall that 17 American sailors were killed in a terrorist attack against that ship. That argument has been used often. This is the reason why the government chose to maintain, by order in council, controlled access military zones in these three ports. Now I really would like to know-- and we will get to the bottom of this--whether the federal government really consulted with the provinces concerned. I do not know where Nanoose Bay is, but I know where Esquimalt is, it is in British Columbia, and Halifax I know where it is too.

The Bloc hopes that before making an order in council, the government will consult the province in question. Anyway, it may not have done so with the other provinces, but I can tell you that in Quebec this issue of the army is very sensitive. People in Quebec remember what happened in their province. They remember the 1970 crisis when the army took over the streets in Montreal, Quebec City and every big town. They still remember it.

The military issue is a very sensitive one in Quebec, especially when it comes to designating such zones. We are warning the government. If it ever decides to do such a thing in Quebec, at the very least the Government of Quebec would have to be informed and agree to it.

Now, some things are still there. Granted, the controlled access military zones are gone. However, on the military side, there are things in the bill that are very interesting, including the fact that from now on reserve officers will be able to leave their job without worrying about it while on a mission on behalf of the armed forces. They will be able to return to their old job afterwards, which is not the case currently. It is interesting that this provision has remained in the legislation.

However, there are other things with which the Bloc Quebecois cannot agree, including the infamous interim orders. Any minister, or even a civil servant, may decide to make an interim order, very quickly by order in council, without advising the public. The only thing that has changed is the duration of the interim order.

In the first bill, it was 90 days. In the second, it was 45. Now, we are down to 14 days. I raised questions previously when other members spoke on this. It seems to me that, as far as the interim orders are concerned, some of these surely will violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In fact, certain aspects of the bill before us at this time, might—and I am convinced of this—end up before the Canadian courts, even the Quebec courts. In my opinion, certain provisions violate the charter. Quite obviously, interim orders made in secret are questionable, particularly when they have the impact of restricting citizens' rights and freedoms.

We also see that there are some changes in the bill as far as immigration is concerned. We want to be tolerant because we do understand that some international cooperation is necessary when combating terrorism. Immigration is important, we know. Moreover, it is one of the areas in which Canada's sovereignty is at risk, as I have said.

Not only did Tom Ridge and John Ashcroft practically write the government's budget, they are also pressuring it on immigration. The proof: there are problems now. We have recently learned that Canadian citizens who were born elsewhere, Syria, Afghanistan and so on, are having problems now with border checks. They are flagged, photographed and fingerprinted. It is all very fine for the Minister of Foreign Affairs to boast of having met with the ambassador, but from what we hear, nothing has changed at the border. The red tape has not lessened. I read this morning again about Canadians of Afghan or Syrian origin who have decided “we are no longer going to the States because we know we will be hassled by the U.S. customs people”.

So there are some basic problems. As far as immigration is concerned, we are certainly obliged to adjust our legislation . If we want to take part in an international effort against terrorism, we can allow a degree of leeway to the minister when it comes to entering into agreements with the provinces and perhaps also with international groups. We have no problem with that.

The reason I think the Bloc Quebecois will object to this legislation, if it is not amended, is the whole issue of information exchange.

In this bill, as was the case in the last federal budget, the government gives carte blanche to the RCMP and CSIS. If one looks at the past, and more specifically at the work of the McDonald commission and the Keable commission, which were set up by the Quebec government, one can definitely wonder about the appropriateness of giving such broad powers to the RCMP and to CSIS, particularly in Quebec. At the time, we learned some incredible things about the behaviour of the RCMP and CSIS regarding various key events in Quebec's history.

Needless to say this is also a very sensitive issue. As soon as people hear about the RCMP and CSIS, they know that certain things are going on in there, things that are not publicly known, things that no one knows anything about. This explains why people are very reluctant to give up part of their freedom for the benefit of agencies such as the RCMP and CSIS.

Even the privacy commissioner said that the government was giving carte blanche to the RCMP. I cannot mention all the things which, in our opinion, are controversial in the bill, as regards this aspect. The fact that the RCMP commissioner or the director of CSIS—probably also through delegation—can inquire about the list of passengers and ask for many details on all the passengers may be used against us. There is something that made me smile: a profile could be established in the case of an individual who makes a habit of travelling to suspicious places.

For example, as a Bloc Quebecois member, if I were to travel to Cuba in the next five years, I could be suspected of being involved in activities dangerous to Canada's security. And this is where everything goes haywire in the respect of the rights and freedoms of Quebeckers and Canadians. From the moment that, under the cover of anti-terrorism measures, the government begins to play big brother in Canada's airline industry, there is a great danger.

In fact, the privacy commissioner said that this is adding insult to injury. Moreover, when the RCMP and CSIS collect data, this information is usually kept for seven days before being disposed of.

However there is no time period in this legislation. It will be possible to follow anyone, and the airlines will not be able to refuse to comply. They will have to obey the law, and if they are asked to provide information on any individual, they will have to do so. And that is where the hidden and obscure powers of the RCMP and CSIS come into play.

With the history surrounding this type of agencies, we, especially Quebeckers, have every reason to wonder about the motives. We also have every reason to wonder about the political police aspect. We just learned about Cabinet documents in the Trudeau era where the government was giving orders to the RCMP to crush any kind of sovereignist movement in Quebec. There is almost no control over these agencies.

Of course, mechanisms are put in place to try to see, from time to time, what these agencies are doing and whether their activities are consistent with Canadian laws. But it never goes very far, and what characterizes these agencies is their freedom to do practically everything they want. Obviously, if they break the law and are called to appear before a committee, they will certainly not admit to violating this act or any other.

So the whole issue of collecting and sharing information is of great concern to us. Of course, as I was saying earlier, we have succeeded in getting rid of the controlled access military zones, but we want the government to go further.

A legislative committee will look into this issue. I hope we can come up with amendments to make some kind of progress, to ensure that the pendulum once again swings toward civil liberties and to avoid what the Prime Minister, along with all the government ministers, talked about earlier, which is that the terrorists' greatest victory would be to completely restrict our rights and freedoms.

Unfortunately, with the bill as it stands now, we are making progress on some issues, but we still have a lot of work to do to swing the pendulum back toward our rights and freedoms.

I think that my colleagues would agree that the Bloc Quebecois is probably the party most likely to ensure progress on these issues. We defend our rights and freedoms very fiercely. The government cannot pass such a bill and expect that everything will be fine in Canada and in Quebec.

I have let the House know how sensitive Quebeckers are on issues concerning the military, the RCMP and CSIS. They defend their rights and freedoms very fiercely. I hope the government will change its mind and remedy the situation by introducing a bill that will not restrict the rights and freedoms of Canadians and Quebeckers. I am ready to take questions on this issue.

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Saint-Jean on a very articulate speech. We can tell he has a very good knowledge of the military, the military life, and the military response we can see in Canada after the September 11 events. We are also well aware of the pressure the United States is shamelessly putting on the American people and friends of the Americans, particularly Canadians who happen to share common borders.

The hon. member also talked about the role of the RCMP and CSIS. Quebec has had some very bad experiences with them. One example is the October crisis. The hon. member mentioned that to remind us how unethical these people can be.

I have one specific question for my colleague. It seems that the federal government, probably in the context of this bill and probably with great delight, is preparing a megafile to collect as much information as it can on Canadians and Quebeckers. To create this megafile, it will start with travellers on international flights. This has a semblance of legitimacy in this context, but it seems that this megafile will soon include railway passengers who travel abroad, travellers who go on cruises or use international ferries. It could even eventually include bus passengers.

Is my colleague aware of this? What does he think about it, and where does it fit in the events unfolding?

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very insightful question. The issue of megafiles within the federal government is not new. We remember that the Minister of Human Resources Development wanted to have a megafile on all employment insurance claimants. There is also the megafile that currently exists at the Customs and Revenue Agency.

When all this is pooled into a centralized information network, this becomes dangerous. If this government decides to go on to the next step, that is to control not only air transportation, but also trains and buses, it will have files on everyone. Anyone taking a bus to go to the United States or any group going on international trips could be asked for a list of its members. By extension, the legislation could be applied to things other than air transportation. The legislation could also be amended.

If we create a precedent by doing what the government wants to do for air transportation, it will be able to continue with other aspects of transportation. I believe that the Bloc Quebecois is unanimous in condemning this idea of a megafile, of a big brother, who, under the guise of the fight against terrorism, makes it possible to control a group of organizations and, most of all, to curtail citizens' rights and freedoms.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis-Et-Chutes-De-La-Chaudière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I too wish to congratulate my colleague from Saint-Jean on his speech by emphasizing one aspect of his work—he was not the only member of the Bloc Quebecois to work on this issue—and that is the whole issue of controlled access military zones. As we know, this bill reflects a certain withdrawal, or perhaps a no uncertain withdrawal, in this respect. I commend him and all the other members who fought on this issue. It shows that it can pay off to debate some bills vigorously.

I also wish to acknowledge in passing the work done prior to September 11, particularly the fight of the hon. member for Mercier against Bill C-54 while she was the industry critic. The government also withdrew the bill on human resources development concerning the unemployed.

Well before September 11, the government wanted to get its hands on as much personal information as possible. The Bloc Quebecois fought to prevent that from happening. We were only partly successful, but this was one of our concerns.

I would like to know if my colleague thinks that, in spite of the Prime Minister's fine words at the time, the events of September 11 gave the federal government an opportunity to use the situation to do more directly what it did not dare do before September 11, 2001?

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague from Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière. I think the government took that opportunity to acquire more control over the rights and freedoms of citizens. It also took the opportunity to try to rake in more revenues.

As we know, when something negative happens, there is always a positive side. An example—and it was raised by colleagues in this place this morning—is the airport safety tax. Without first carrying out any studies, the government announced “that it would collect a $24 tax at airports and that it would put that in its budget”.

The government did not take advantage of the events of September 11 just to interfere with individual rights and freedoms: It also took the opportunity to generate additional revenues for itself.

We have condemned this measure, and we will remain vigilant. I want to reassure my colleague from Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière that anytime the federal government interferes with individual rights and freedoms in Quebec or Canada, it will find a party standing in its way, and that party is the Bloc Quebecois.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from South Surrey—White Rock—Langley.

It is a pleasure for me to rise and speak to the public safety bill. This is a bill that takes into consideration what happened on September 11. Naturally Canadians desire the assurance that their borders are safe and that law enforcement agencies have the powers, the means and the ability to ensure that our security is taken care of.

The problem with the bill is that too many provisions and other acts have been put in one bill. It does not allow us to break it down to ensure that the rights of Canadians and safety are maintained.

The most important aspect of the bill is the immigration section. We have heard time after time about the need to ensure that we have an immigration system that reflects the needs of Canada and takes into account that security is not breached if there is a slack system. If due diligence is not done there is a possibility, and I refer to those who do not subscribe to a lawful means or do not subscribe to coming through the legal means and misuse the system, that some individuals will sneak through. It is the responsibility of the government to ensure that it does not happen.

A disturbing feature has come out in the last two days. It may be the government's lack of security or an extra desire by the authorities in the United States, who have started profiling certain individuals with certain backgrounds coming into this part of the world, especially those who are Canadians and living in Canada, to fingerprint and single out certain individuals.

The United States is a sovereign state. We enjoy good relations with the U.S. Canada does not want to have two classes of citizens in this country. The responsibility for this lies over there with the government to ensure that the integrity of our immigration system is not compromised, so that people who come to Canada from any part of the world are properly screened and can live with dignity in this country, and travel anywhere around the world with a Canadian passport without having to rebut the actions of the U.S.A.

The U.S.A. is going overboard in this respect. We must tell them that Canadians, from all parts of the world, have gone through our system. It is also important that the government have a system and an immigration policy in place that ensures that we do not have people slipping in. This is important and once that is done I am sure that the U.S.A. would have confidence and it would not create this type of a law which we all do not like. I do not wish to go to the U.S.A. and be fingerprinted just because I am of a different colour, absolutely not.

There are two ways of approaching the problem. On the one hand the United States has gone overboard, but on the other hand, we do not have full confidence in our own system. Whose responsibility is that? The responsibility lies on both sides, including the Government of Canada to ensure that this does not happen.

The reports today talk about the number of people that were not eligible to come into Canada but did so through a ministerial permit. If there is a good reason, let us have that reason. Let it become transparent. Let people know who comes into the country and why. We have genuine, legitimate refugees coming into Canada, but we also have numerous reports of people slipping through because of a lack of resources. I agree that we have laws that should take care of the cracks in the system.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

I will begin statements by members, but the hon. member has four minutes left when we return after question period.

Award for Teaching Excellence

[John Maloney, Liberal, Erie—Lincoln, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to pay tribute to Marie Hockley, a secondary school teacher in my riding of Erie--Lincoln. Earlier this year Marie received the Prime Minister's Award for Teaching Excellence, one of 19 recipients nationwide.

As a teacher at Ridgeway-Crystal Beach High School, Marie believes in teaching the whole child. That is, teaching skills in both the cognitive and affective domain and integrating academic lessons with employable skills. Marie believes setting higher standards leads students to achieve their goals. Her students at both the academic and vocational levels have been inspired by her approach and have achieved success. Marie also helped to develop the school's cross curriculum plan.

The early years are crucial to establishing a student's foundation for learning, behaviour and health for a lifetime. Marie is a creative, dedicated educator who is helping young Canadians to build the skills they will need to succeed in our innovation driven economy.

I am honoured to recognize Marie and send my congratulations to her and to Ridgeway-Crystal Beach High School.

Kyoto Protocol

[Dave Chatters, Canadian Alliance, Athabasca, AB]

Madam Speaker, Kyoto might wind up cooking Canada's goose, but it could also be the goose that laid the golden egg for the Prime Minister.

No doubt many Canadians have heard the rumour that the Prime Minister cooked a little deal in Johannesburg wherein he promised that he would ratify Kyoto if they promised he would be appointed the Secretary General of the United Nations in 2004 when Kofi Annan retires.

We are not gullible, but nor do we ignore the rumours of backroom deals like this being made. The Prime Minister is well known for making sure his constituents are well looked after. Would we expect him to care any less for himself? Among many Canadians there is a suspicion that the PM sees Kyoto as a means of transferring wealth from industrialized nations to the less developed. It is called his Africa agenda.

Is this his contribution to levelling the international playing field? Is it so important to him that he would risk Canada's economic future? Is it that important to the Prime Minister that he secure his future and his legacy by selling Canada down the river in exchange for a high profile position at the UN?

Gemini Awards

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the many talented professionals of the Canadian television industry who were recognized last night and during the weekend at the Gemini Awards, organized by the Academy of Canadian Cinema and Television.

Since the eighties, the academy has honoured the outstanding achievements of Canadian television's brightest stars at the Geminis. The academy's efforts have brought well deserved attention to a national television system that is among the best in the world.

The Government of Canada is proud to support the Canadian television industry with policies and programs which encourage content of a truly national character. We commend these talented professionals for producing programming that is reflective of Canada and its culturally diverse heritage.

I ask members to please join me in congratulating the academy for another successful event as well as our many talented 2002 Gemini Award winners.

Association des médecins de langue française du Canada

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that on November 1, a gala luncheon was held in Montreal to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Association des médecins de langue française du Canada.

This association, with more than 5,000 members in Canada, the United States, and the West Indies, was created to promote the use of the French language at all levels.

On the occasion of its centenary, Dr. Jean Léveillé, past president, unveiled a medal representing the association's founding president, Dr. Michel Delphis Brochu.

The first recipients of the medal were Drs. Jacques Boulay, Jacques Genest and Victor Goldbloom of Quebec, as well as Ms. Gisèle Lalonde from Ontario, and Dr. Aurel Schofield from New Brunswick.

Congratulations to these first recipients and long live the one hundred-year-old association.

Israel

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the state and people of Israel have been the standing target these past two years of a sustained and unparalleled terrorist assault, equivalent to half a dozen 9/11s. Accordingly, Israel, like any other state, has the right and indeed the duty to protect its citizens and exercise its right of self-defence against those who would terrorize her and seek her destruction.

The exercise of that right, however, must always be undertaken in accordance with international humanitarian law, particularly as it relates to the responsibilities of an occupying power and the protection of civilians in armed conflict.

Accordingly, Israel should revisit its policies and practices in the matter of closures and curfews, demolitions and deportations, land seizures and confiscations, including unauthorized settlements and illegal acts of settlers against Palestinians, so as to ensure its compliance with fundamental norms of international humanitarian law; in particular, to ensure that any persons who commit illegal acts, such as the uprooting of olive groves, are held accountable before the law under the principle of equal justice for both Israelis and Palestinians.

Veterans Week

[Roy H. Bailey, Canadian Alliance, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's veterans are the pride of our country. On behalf of Her Majesty's loyal opposition, I am pleased to support and promote Veterans' Week and this year's theme, “Remembering our Past, Preserving our Future”.

I want to thank members on both sides of the House for supporting my private member's initiative to have all Canadian flags flown at half-mast on federal buildings on Remembrance Day. I am encouraging the provincial governments and the territorial premiers to follow the example of the House so that flags will fly at half-mast on all provincial government buildings as well.

It is my hope that in the near future, on each and every November 11, flying a flag at half-mast will be as common as the poppies that we wear.

Kyoto Protocol

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, claims made by Kyoto opponents that we do not have a made in Canada plan are simply false. Yesterday Canada's environment minister pointed out that Canada developed over the past five years a made in Canada plan with the cooperation of all 14 provinces and territories. Kyoto opponents say that we should not abide by an international agreement, yet under Kyoto we chose our own targets, like all other countries under the agreement.

Opponents seem unable to grasp the fact that climate change is a global problem. Therefore Kyoto creates an international framework and at the same time allows countries to set their own targets and implementation plans. Opponents to Kyoto should stop misleading Canadians so that we can get on with the job of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and of reducing the damage they cause.

Journées québécoises de la solidarité internationale

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as part of the Journées québécoises de la solidarité internationale, which took place from October 17 to 27, the Laurentides committee organized a number of activities to promote the need for peace in the world.

The committee involved six secondary schools from my region in a project named Solidarité en herbe, a quiz game to promote awareness of peace among youth.

The committee also initiated a petition to show solidarity. The petitioners point out that there are no magic solutions to conflicts around the world, but that certain actions may help to change attitudes and promote peace and justice.

I join the 1,045 petitioners in saying no to offensive action, and yes to peaceful solutions.

I congratulate the organizers of this wonderful initiative, who, by their work, demonstrate their dedication to peace and their opposition to solutions that use war to try to resolve conflict.