Mr. Speaker, a few days ago, on April 17 to be more precise, several members of this House celebrated, their hands to their hearts, not what is referred to in Quebec as the result of the night of the long knives, not what is called the unilateral patriation of the Constitution--since they were trying to keep away from less unifying subjects--but rather the anniversary of the charter of rights and freedoms.
They told us how the charter of rights and freedoms has changed the face of Canada and made its citizens feel like they were living in a democracy where their fundamental rights would be protected by a legal document enshrined in the Constitution.
The hon. member for Frontenac--Mégantic told us that the charter of rights and freedoms is what defines his identity, his beliefs and the values he holds dear. The member for St. Paul's argued the same day that the fundamental rights of Canadians are defined in that same charter of rights and freedoms. Also on the issue of the charter, the ineffable President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs stated, and I quote, “The charter will protect their rights”--meaning the rights of all Canadians--“in the future, as it has for the past 20 years”. Funny how the future does not always last all that long.
What are we debating today? We are debating Bill C-55. We most certainly could have celebrated Bill C-55. In these times where our fellow citizens are increasingly uncertain, cynical and losing interest in politics, Bill C-55 could very well have been an occasion to celebrate—to celebrate the fact that the government had finally stopped being arrogant, shown some modesty and listened to the many voices that spoke out against the previous safety bill, Bill C-42, which the government chose to withdraw, voices that did not come only from elected representatives here in parliament, but also from the general public as well.
That is why we could have been proud. We could have celebrated the fact that the government had responded to the expectations and concerns expressed by the public. And yet, what do we have before us? A bill, Bill C-55, entitled an act to amend certain Acts of Canada, and to enact measures for implementing the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, in order to enhance public safety. This is a wordy title if I ever have seen one. All this to say that, in the end, this title is just camouflage for a bill which, for all intents and purposes, is almost identical to Bill C-42.
Of course, a few cosmetic changes were made, but the fact remains that this bill, like its predecessor, seriously threatens the very rights and freedoms that we or, should I say, that our colleagues from other political parties celebrated, with their hand on their heart, on April 17.
I cannot help but remind members of what privacy commissioner George Radwanski said regarding Bill C-55, which is before the House today. In the May 2 issue of La Presse he was quoted as saying:
—the Chrétien government new anti-terrorism bill smacks of practices similar to those that exist in totalitarian states—
That is quite a statement. We are talking about Canada. We are talking about a bill which, according to the privacy commissioner, is aimed at implementing practices that existed in totalitarian states.
And again, still in yesterday's issue of La Presse : “—these ‘exceptional measures’” provided for in Bill C-55 are “far from being tools to fight terrorism—”
This is serious because this bill is supposed to provide us with additional tools to fight terrorism. The privacy commissioner added that:
—these “exceptional” measures, far from being tools to fight terrorism, are really “a dramatic expansion of privacy-invasive police powers without explanation or justification as to its necessity”.
In an article published in today's issue of Le Soleil , Mr. Radwanski is quoted as saying:
The precedent set by section 4.82 could open the door, in principle, to practices similar to those that exist in totalitarian societies where police routinely board trains or establish roadblocks to check identification papers.
This is cause for great concern. It would appear that in the House only the opposition is worried by what the privacy commissioner is reported to have said.
Indeed, yesterday, the member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot had the nerve to grandstand and rise on a point of privilege to complain that the privacy commissioner had not fulfilled his obligation, first, by not advising the House of the comments he made regarding Bill C-55.
The autocratic tendency of the government goes as far as trying to muzzle officers of the House to prevent them from saying what has to be said about the troubling nature of some pieces of legislation put forward by this government.
We are getting increasingly concerned by repeated comments of this kind on the part of members of this House. We have every reason to be perplexed, to say the least.
Since when do we ask House appointed officers, such as the auditor general or the chief electoral officer, to report to this House each time they express themselves publicly, when they are interviewed by the media, for example?
On the face of it, the arguments made by our colleague from Ancaster--Dundas--Flamborough--Aldershot are absolutely pointless and fallacious, and we must refute them without the slightest hesitation.
Obviously, I could have dwelt on the main concerns, on the controlled access military zones, about which my colleague from Laval--Centre spoke at length this morning, on the interim orders, on the fact that the RCMP and CSIS can obtain personal information on passengers from the air carriers.
Needless to say, we are very disappointed with this bill. We were very happy that the government listened to the Bloc Quebecois, among others, and withdrew the despicable Bill C-42, but we are greatly disappointed to see that the government withdrew it only to bring it back under another guise, although its substance is very similar if not identical.