Debates of May 30th, 2002

Middle East

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I know the House will be following this question with a great deal of interest. I had an opportunity to speak about it at committee this morning. It is obviously an extremely complex issue.

What Canada is seeking to do is allow the two parties who came very close to an agreement some time ago to restore some confidence which will enable them to once again begin a political dialogue which will end this terrible dispute. It is not capable of being ended by a military solution. We urge the parties and Mr. Arafat to find a way to stop the violence. We urge the Israeli government to make the life of the Palestinian people such that they will have hope and that we can go forward and turn the page on a past which has been terrible for everybody in that country.

Human Resources Development

[Monte Solberg, Canadian Alliance, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is forever telling us to file an access request if we want more information about his scandal plagued government.

Since March 2000 the human resources minister has been sitting on an access request that involves an RCMP investigation dealing with a $165,000 job grant awarded to a Bloc MP that all of a sudden got diverted into the Prime Minister's riding.

Can the human resources minister explain why she has been stonewalling the information commissioner's legal demands for information for over two years now?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, what I can explain is that my department has a stellar record when it comes to responding to access to information requests. In fact, it was the hon. member's own party researchers who applauded my department for its work in that regard.

It is clear there was a point when our responses were slowed down because there was a ten times increase in the requests that we received. In working with the privacy commissioner and the access to information experts we have restored our integrity in this process. We will continue to provide the information as it is requested.

[Monte Solberg, Canadian Alliance, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, then why does the minister not make a commitment right now to give us that report? It has been sitting on her desk for two years. I take it she is going to do that.

According to the former head of Liberal research, the PMO has now set up a committee whose sole purpose is to block and stall the release of this type of information. There is a 4,000 page report sitting on her desk that the information commissioner has demanded be released. Why will the minister not release that information? Why will she not make that commitment now?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated we respond to these requests. The hon. member himself has identified that many of these requests are expansive and there are thousands and thousands of pages that have to be reviewed. Let me confirm to the hon. member and to the House that our commitment to access to information requests is firm and strong. We will respond with information as is appropriate.

Government Contracts

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we asked the minister of public works whether or not he was planning on suspending the $2 million contract granted to Robert-Guy Scully for a series on innovation and entrepreneurship, given that the RCMP is currently investigating his series on Maurice Richard. The minister informed us that he would review the file and report back.

Can he tell us today if he had time to examine the contract and if he will suspend the contract, as he did for advertising contracts?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I have made some inquiries with respect to this innovation television series. I would point out that this is not a sponsorship initiative. Rather, it is a partnership between the Government of Canada and the private sector to promote innovation in this country from coast to coast to coast. There are no communications agencies involved or commissions paid.

[Carol Skelton, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, today being Thursday, it is my duty at this time to ask the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons what business he has for the remainder of today, tomorrow and next week.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to respond to my first business question since I came, as I said, back home again.

Today we will continue with the debate on second reading of Bill C-55. This would be followed by report stage and third reading of Bill S-34, the royal assent bill, followed by consideration of a minor technical amendment made by the Senate to Bill C-23, the competition legislation.

Tomorrow we plan to resume business where it leaves off today, with Bill C-15B, the criminal code amendments, as a backup, a bill which I know people are very enthusiastic about supporting.

In any case, it is my intention to call Bill C-15B as the first item of business on Monday.

On Tuesday, subject to progress made earlier, we will commence the report stage of Bill C-53, the pest control legislation. In the evening the House will be in committee of the whole on the Public Works and Government Services estimates, pursuant to our new rule.

Wednesday we plan to debate second reading of a bill respecting nuclear safety about which I gave information to House leaders yesterday. The bill will be introduced at the beginning of the week.

Thursday of next week, that is to say a week from today, shall be an allotted day, the last of this supply period which means, and I say this for the benefit of all hon. members and their plans for that day, that the House will sit into the evening or could sit as late as the evening, depending of course, to consider the main estimates and the appropriation act based thereon.

I want to thank all colleagues, if I can say so in conclusion, for their kind words upon my return as Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The government House leader neglected to say what the government's plans were with respect to Bill C-5, the species at risk bill. I know it is a bit unorthodox but could he tell us what the government's disposition is with respect to that bill?

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, amendments are necessary to further improve the bill. We are reviewing some of those amendments now.

I hope that by the meeting of Tuesday where all House leaders meet that I will be able to indicate to my colleagues across the way from all parties when we will be able to resume consideration of the report stage of Bill C-5.

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I seek unanimous consent to revert to presenting reports from committees so I may present the sixth report of the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was not made aware of the subject of this. No one informed me. If the purpose of this is to table the report of the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations and no other action at this time, I would agree to that, yes.

[The Speaker]

Is there agreement to revert to presenting reports from committees?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-55, 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

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

Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time I speak to Bill C-55. Unfortunately, as consideration of the bill progresses, more and more concerns are raised, and our support for the bill, as a party, is decreasing.

On several occasions, I brought up the issue of controlled access military zones. There are numerous other aspects of the bill with which we have problems. As the debate unfolds, more people are taking position against the substance of the bill.

The privacy commissioner made comments recently. Just this week, while I was part of a delegation for NATO, Amnesty International published a very interesting document on the evolution of this issue in various parliaments. The Government of Canada made the list of parliaments which are tightening their grip and limiting freedom of expression and civil liberties in general. Amnesty International is very concerned about that.

I would like to come back once more to the areas of limitation, which is the crux of the matter as far as we are concerned. There is also the issue of information which will circulate very widely within various government agencies. There is also the issue of interim orders through which the minister and the governor in council will be able to do almost anything they want.

For now, I will focus on controlled access military zones. This part of the act does not make sense, in our view, and I will explain why.

First, one person, the chief of the defence staff, will make a recommendation to a single individual, the Minister of National Defence. Imagine what this means in the present context: we have a new defence minister to whom it could be recommended to create a controlled access military zone.

I often give this example in my speeches. He can suddenly decide to create a very large zone around the naval reserve building in Quebec City and including, for example, all of Old Quebec. Under the bill now before us, the minister would have the mandate and the power to do so on his own, without consulting the governor in council. Without any consultation, he could say, for reasons known only to him, “I am creating a controlled access military zone in Old Quebec, and here is why I have made that decision”.

He could also decide not to say a word to anybody. That too is provided for in the bill. People could be in a controlled access military zone without even knowing it. It is true not only for people, but also for their property, their cars, and even their pets, I believe. If your dog bites a military person in a controlled access military zone, you could be prosecuted. You could be forcibly removed from such a zone, which is sometimes done in a quite violent fashion. Once the military is given the mandate to control a controlled access military zone, it will do so its own way. When told to remove somebody from that zone, it will not necessarily do it tactfully.

The minister has complete discretion. The legislation says that this will be done in a reasonable fashion. There are 301 members in the House of Commons and there are probably as many definitions of the term reasonable. Therefore, the minister can, in a reasonable fashion, establish a zone and specify its dimensions, the effective period of designation and whether it will be renewed or not. A single person has the power to do that.

What constitutes a severe blow to the rights and freedoms in that regard--I was referring to the little dog biting a soldier's leg--is when someone gets thrown out by force without knowing he was inside a military zone. He will also be told “It is just too bad, sir, but you cannot sue the Crown. You cannot sue the federal government if you were inside that zone, even unknowingly, for damage caused to you”.

Of course, the bill provides that Treasury Board may compensate a citizen, but this is discretionary. If the Treasury Board says “No, I do not want to compensate you for the damage caused to you” and if you want to sue the government, you cannot because that is what is provided for in the bill.

We feel that the bill really goes too far. We are not alone in saying so. The privacy commissioner says the same thing. I think many opposition parties do too. I think some Liberal colleagues who take the charter of rights and freedoms seriously should oppose the bill. Unfortunately, we have not heard a lot from them so far.

I admire the courage of the government members when they are able to rise on a basic principle to say they disagree. Indeed, we were recently given the full violin treatment for the 20th anniversary of the charter of rights and freedoms. In this regard, it is quite simple. The bill is a direct attack on the charter of rights and freedoms.

In several of my speeches, I have already said that it will not be long before this bill, once passed, is challenged in court. Some people will challenge it on the grounds that it violates the charter of rights and freedoms. I think these people will be right to do so. As the bill stands, it is quite likely that the courts will agree with whoever challenges it.

Consequently, I believe that the government went too far. We remember the days following the terrible events and the awful disaster of September 11. Everyone here in the House was saying “The people must not be deprived of their freedom, because the terrorists will have succeeded”.

In all my speeches, I said that the terrorists succeeded in convincing governments to restrict rights and freedoms. I believe this is unacceptable in our context.

It is not too late. The bill will certainly be referred to a committee. I was away from the House for a few days because I was travelling with NATO. I am anxious to see what type of committee will consider this bill. This is an omnibus bill. It deals with transportation. Indeed, it is the Minister of Transport who is sponsoring the bill. However, it also deals with national defence and the solicitor general. This bill affects several acts.

So it will not be too late to suggest some amendments. However, the way it is currently worded and drafted, it is impossible for us to agree with this bill. At this point, the best thing for the government would be to withdraw it and go back to the drawing board again to ensure that it does not allow terrorists to restrict the rights and freedoms of all of western society. This is very important, in my opinion.

If the government does not do so, it will have to be open to several amendments. The Bloc Quebecois is definitely opposed to the bill as it stands. It will take several changes before the Bloc Quebecois can say at third reading “We support this type of bill that restricts the rights and freedoms of the citizens of Canada and Quebec”.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-55. I am eager to see the decision that you will hand down on the amendment brought forward by my colleague from the Conservative Party, since I totally support that amendment. It asks that this bill be scrapped, and I agree with the Conservative member on that.

This government never justified why we, in the House, should pass legislation that would restrict individual freedoms. It never justified why such harsh legislation was needed following the events of September 11. September 11 has become the perfect excuse for limiting the rights of citizens.

I want to congratulate my colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville, who this morning received telephone calls from two women's associations informing her of their objections to Bill C-55. It is nice to see that, again, it is the women of this country who are telling these men who are in the majority in the House that they must stop restricting the freedoms of Canadians and Quebecers.

I want to thank these women and tell them that I heard their message and that, as a woman myself, I know that they are right. Restricting rights and freedoms is useless. We already have, in the existing laws, all the means we need to counter terrorist acts.

If the government were willing to enforce these laws that we already have here, in Canada, we would not be talking about Bill C-55.

Before oral question period, the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord tried to fool everybody by saying that it is good legislation. Strangely enough, it seems that only this government is right. Many people, including editorial writers, Amnesty International and other organizations, said “This bill should suffer the same fate as Bill C-42. It should be withdrawn. And this government should do its homework properly”.

When a member from a party on this side of the House wants to become a government member, we see a radical change in his or her position. In that regard, I would like to quote what the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord said in a statement that he made on February 22, 2000, when he was in opposition:

The Liberals absolutely do not want to consult the public to find out what it thinks of this measure... Arrogance, contempt and indifference toward the House of Commons and toward all Canadians are now part of a behaviour that is beginning to spread throughout this government.

Curiously, when someone is in the governing party, he is at a loss for ideas. I thought the hon. member was right about the government, when he was in the opposition.

If he really believes in Bill C-55, why does he not consult the public before it becomes law? This type of legislation will lead us up a dead-end alley of repression.

We, of the Bloc Quebecois, have experienced the War Measures Act. I referred to that in my last speech. Some of my friends were arrested without explanation. They were held in very secret places and not told why they were being held.

The government will be empowered to designate controlled access military zones and a single minister, the Defence Minister, will determine the dimensions of these zones.

He will order defence staff to create military zones. He will be the one to decide. This is serious. A single person cannot be given the unlimited power to restrict civil liberties.

This government always says “Rights and liberties are important. We celebrated the anniversary of the charter of rights and freedoms. Canada is known throughout the world as a great democratic country”. With this bill, however, it is following in the Americans' footsteps, who have lost control over what they are because of the events of September 11. They put everything in the same basket and say “From now on I can do anything, even violate the rights and freedoms of people.”

Now, I do not belong to this country, namely because of the way this government considers the need to have restricting laws in Canada. This is why I want to get out of this country. If this is where this government is going, no way, I want no part of it. I say to this government “Go to the centre. Meanwhile, we will go our own way and respect the rights and freedoms of people”.

On behalf of the people of Jonquière, I say that such a bill should not be passed. It is a repressive bill that will never give the people from Jonquière the opportunity to express themselves. If the defence minister decides to create a zone around the Bagotville military base, we will never know whether we are in or out of that zone. Moreover, the minister will not even have to consult the provincial government to decide what should be included in that zone. He will not even have the courtesy to do it. He will only say “I am the boss, I am going ahead and I am making the decisions”. The people from Jonquière and from Quebec will never accept the government acting in such a way.

I ask this government to withdraw Bill C-55, to toss it out and to say “We will review all the legislation we have. We are convinced that we have everything we need to protect Canada from terrorist attacks like the ones carried out on September 11”. It is never too late to step back and say “I am wrong”. It is never too late to say “After some discussion, I admit that it is true”.

Oddly enough, we hear nothing from across the way. They are so silent. What is happening with this bill is serious business. Why are they keeping quiet? Like me, they represent citizens, and are here to speak on their behalf and to protect their rights and freedoms. It is odd that they have nothing to say. Does this mean they are so out of touch with the needs of their fellow citizens and are so much on a different plane that the things that affect people's everyday lives are of no importance to them.

These are very important questions and need answers before there is any vote on Bill C-55. I am therefore most humbly requesting that this government withdraw Bill C-55 and redo its homework so that it can introduce another bill, consulting the provinces and the mayors of major Quebec centres as well.

In my region, the Saguenay, there is one mayor who represents close to 148,000 voters. Our new mayor, Jean Tremblay, will not even be consulted. He will not be very thrilled about that. He has been in the visitor's gallery here in the House of Commons and he was far from a silent presence. They will have a hard time with him. I told them “Before you have to deal with the mayor of Saguenay, you might be better off to sit down with the stakeholders, withdraw your bill and see that what gets passed reflects a concern for the wellbeing and the rights and freedoms of all those who are in Canada at this time”.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You know the tremendous respect I have for the Chair and how much respect I have for you as a parliamentarian and a expert in parliamentary law. I think that it is widely known that you are one of the foremost Canadian experts on parliamentary law.

In this context, and in order to help us plan the rest of the day and speeches, we would like to know when you plan on ruling on the amendment introduced by our colleague, the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.

[The Speaker]

I hope to rule shortly. I can assure the hon. member that I am studying the matter right now. I thank the hon. member for his interest in the matter.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak to the amendment that, as my hon. colleague from the Bloc indicated, has been put forward by the member of parliament for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough. The amendment states:

That all the words after “that” be deleted and the following be substituted,

“this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-55 because it constitutes an autocratic power grab by the Liberal government at the expense of parliamentary oversight and the civil liberties of Canadians.”

A number of acts come into play in Bill C-55: the Aeronautics Act; the National Defence Act; the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority Act; the Marine Transportation Security Act; the Criminal Code of Canada; and interim order powers.

A lack of specifics with respect to the Aeronautics Act was one of our concerns about the original bill, Bill C-42, which was introduced last fall in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks. There have been modifications to the part of Bill C-55 dealing with the Aeronautics Act.

The part of the bill dealing with the National Defence Act has been somewhat changed. The proposed military security zones would now be called controlled access military zones. Canadians will find out all about this next month in Kananaskis. Bill C-55 stipulates that the zones could only be created to protect DND property or foreign military assets in the country. The changes are relatively insignificant.

With respect to interim order powers, the bill would now require orders to be approved by governor in council within 45 rather than 90 days. They would need to be tabled in parliament within 15 days. The changes are relatively insignificant and do not substantially address concerns about abuse of power and interim order making.

The Canadian Air Transport Security Authority Act received royal assent after Bill C-42 was tabled last fall. Bill C-55 has been updated to reflect that the act was passed. If Liberal members opposite had their act together this section of the bill would have initially appeared as a conditional amendment. The fact that it did not further underlines how the government has been making up its security policy on the fly for the past several months.

Unlike Bill C-42, Bill C-55 would add a new section to the Marine Transportation Security Act that would empower the government to contribute funds to port authorities to help pay for new security measures. Peter Mancini, our justice critic in the House from 1997 to 2000, said the Liberal government would rue the day it privatized port authorities. That day has arrived even more quickly than Mr. Mancini predicted.

Bill C-55 would broaden the scope of the criminal code with respect to hoaxes.

There have been a number of changes to Bill C-55 but as civil libertarians we still have concerns about it. In one sense it is an improved public safety package. However it needed improving. In the wake of September 11, Bill C-42 was rushed in. The government sat on it from November until April when it brought in the revised bill, Bill C-55. It should have made significant improvements at the time. It did not. It should therefore come as no surprise to people who follow politics and are aware of the New Democratic Party's strong support for civil liberties over the years that we will continue to oppose this piece of legislation.

The government wants to give itself powers to spy on passenger lists of people travelling on airplanes bound for domestic or foreign destinations. That is too much. It introduced anti-terrorism Bill C-42 which was widely criticized by civil libertarians as being draconian and dangerous to the freedom and liberty of Canadian citizens. That may have been why the government paused last fall and did not proceed with the bill.

As I have indicated, we in our party do not believe the new version has been substantially approved. It is overly heavy handed. Some people have indicated that it is draconian in its present form. As I said, it is understandable that mistakes are made when bills are formulated on the fly after a tragedy. However with the benefit of hindsight it is unfortunate that so many mistakes remain in the legislation.

The New Democrats are not the only ones opposed to Bill C-55 and speaking out against it. The privacy commissioner has deep concerns, so much so that he took the relatively extraordinary step of publicly releasing the letter he wrote to the transport minister on the topic. The letter related specifically to clause 4.82 of the bill. The privacy commissioner's concern was that the provisions of Bill C-55 could fundamentally and unnecessarily alter the balance between individuals and the state that exists and should exist in a free society such as our own.

The privacy commissioner Mr. Radwanski said he feared deeply for the privacy and civil rights of Canadians. So do we all. So should we all. The privacy commissioner is not alone. At least one backbench Liberal has publicly expressed concern that the bill in its present form would give undue powers to cabinet ministers over the civil liberties of Canadians.

We are making the same call in the House of Commons for caution, prudence and the protection of civil liberties as did our predecessor giants. Men like Tommy Douglas and David Lewis stood in the House in the fall of 1970 and spoke out against the War Measures Act. That was a time of emergency. On reflection, this is also a time of emergency. It is unworthy of the government to proceed in this way on this bill at this time.

As I have said, the government has waited four months to introduce the bill. All of a sudden it is in a rush to have it pass through the House before we rise in little more than three weeks time. Where has the government been since the bill was introduced in November? Why was it not brought back to the House until the spring? We have been dealing with a number of relatively miniscule items since then. We could have dealt with a more substantive bill like this but we did not.

It is our duty as parliamentarians to give the legislation the depth and scrutiny it deserves and requires. We are asking the questions Canadians want answered. In doing so we hope to give the government and the public time to hone in on exactly what is going on.

We in our party oppose the legislation and welcome the amendment produced by the hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough. We call on the government to reconsider the tight, unrealistic time frame it has indicated and give us the space necessary to consult all Canadians and parliamentarians on Bill C-55.

[The Speaker]

The Chair is prepared to make a ruling on the acceptability of the amendment introduced earlier today by the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.

I must begin by saying that the Chair has concerns regarding this amendment.

These concerns arose particularly out of the colourful language the hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough chose to incorporate into the amendment. To an independent Chair it is always a shock to see language like this in a motion before the House.

However I have survived the shock and I have decided to examine some of the precedents I know the hon. member will be interested in hearing about, some of which were found in Marleau and Montpetit in the section describing the acceptability of reasoned amendments.

I refer hon. members to a situation that occurred in 1971. The reference can be found on page 7764 of the Hansard for that date. The hon. member for Edmonton West, Mr. Lambert, proposed an amendment to a bill on income tax.

The amendment he moved reads as follows:

That all the words after “That” be struck out and the following substituted:

“this House deeply concerned with unacceptable levels of inflation, persisting unemployment and stagnant industry and conscious of the necessity for meaningful tax reform declines to give second reading to a bill which does not provide sufficient stimulus to the economy of Canada with appropriate tax cuts and incentives, does not contain adequate tax exemptions and is not calculated to materially improve business and labour conditions in Canada now or in the foreseeable future.”

The amendment provoked a lengthy debate on its procedural acceptability following which Mr. Speaker Lamoureux indicated his concerns about the acceptability of the amendment but ultimately decided to admit it. He said among other things:

Hon. members have recognized that it is difficult for the Chair to rule on the procedural aspect of reasoned amendments. Hon. members who have participated in this very interesting procedural debate have suggested, or some of them have, that it is becoming increasingly difficult to propose acceptable reasoned amendments. I cannot entirely agree with this suggestion. If hon. members will look into the records of our House of Commons they will note that during most of our parliamentary history so-called reasoned amendments have been proposed on rare occasions only. It seems that only during the last few years have members started to use this device, that is, the device of reasoned amendment, on second or third reading of bills.

Obviously that was then and this is now. However the fact is that we do have these a little more often but normally the amendments are ones for the six month hoist or that the bill be sent to a committee or not be accepted for some specific reason.

The hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough moved:

That all the words after “that” be deleted and the following be substituted,

“this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-55 because it constitutes an autocratic power grab by the Liberal government at the expense of parliamentary oversight and the civil liberties of Canadians.”

As I indicated at the outset, I have concerns regarding the terms used by the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough in the text of his amendment. Despite this, and with some reservation, I have decided that the amendment was in order and I am now putting it to the House.

Accordingly, the debate is on the amendment.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to obtain the unanimous consent of the House for the following motion:

That the House of Commons express its surprise at the decision of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II to invite the Hells Angels, a criminal bikers gang, to take part in the festivities of the 50th anniversary of her accession to the throne, and beg her to reconsider.

[The Speaker]

Does the hon. member for Roberval have unanimous consent to present his motion?