House of Commons Hansard #195 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was c-55.
The Speaker
I wish to inform hon. members that the air conditioning service in the parliamentary buildings has been restored.
Consequently, the order passed yesterday on the dress code for members in the House no longer applies.
The Chair will no longer ignore a state of déshabille.
Geoff Regan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of order in council appointments made recently by the government.
Geoff Regan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to two petitions.
David Pratt Liberal Nepean—Carleton, ON
Madam Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs entitled “Facing Our Responsibilities:The State of Readiness of theCanadian Forces”.
Notwithstanding Standing Order 109, the committee would like the government to respond within120 days.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank all members of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs, in particular the two vice-chairs, the member for Lakeland and the member for Compton--Stanstead.
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the research staff and other committee staff: Mr. Wolf Koerner; Mr. Michel Rossignol; Diane Deschamps, our clerk; and Lieutenant Colonel Barry Hamilton, our consultant.
Finally, I would like to thank the 92 witnesses who appeared before the committee over the course of 39 meetings.
Main Estimates 2002-03--Agriculture and Agri-FoodRoutine Proceedings
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)
The following motion in the name of hon. the Leader of the Opposition is deemed adopted.
That, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4)(b), consideration by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food of Votes Nos. 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35 and 40 under AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2003, be extended beyond May 31, 2002.
(Motion deemed adopted)
Carol Skelton Canadian Alliance Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK
Madam Speaker, I would like to present a petition to the House of Commons which was started in my riding of Saskatoon--Rosetown--Biggar on which there are names of people from right across Canada.
It states that the disability tax credit, having been taken away for no apparent reason from the numerous disabled persons, be reinstated without delay. It is a grave injustice to state that a disabled person is no longer deserving of the DTC. The removal of DTC creates monetary hardships for many of the disabled who face higher cost of living expenses than Canadians without disabilities. The petitioners request that parliament reinstate the DTC.
The original petition, which began in my riding, had over 3,600 names within a month. I salute the people for bringing it forward. I ask the House of Commons to look at this seriously.
Rex Barnes Progressive Conservative Gander—Grand Falls, NL
Madam Speaker, today I present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36. I am honoured to present the petition on behalf of the employees in my riding of Gander with regard to the Department of National Defence contracting out the military supply chain.
Since we have a new Minister of National Defence, I am sure that he will take the petition into account and revisit the contracting out of the supply chain to a British company. We hope we can reverse this with the hon. minister so that we can work on behalf of all the people in my riding and for the good of the country.
Serge Cardin Bloc Sherbrooke, QC
Madam Speaker, I wish to present a petition to add to the hundreds of signatures on petitions already presented by my colleagues in the House concerning rural route mail couriers.
Since my arrival in parliament, three and a half or four years ago, this issue has always been a topical question, but the government has never responded favourably. This explains why people continue signing petitions asking for the to negotiate their wages and working conditions. Often, they work for less than minimum wage. They practically have to pay for the pleasure of sending their income tax cheques to the government.
In this regard, of course, I support these petitioners who call on the government and parliament to repeal subsection 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act so that these workers can have decent working conditions.
Geoff Regan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)
Is that agreed?
The House resumed from May 29 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; and of the amendment.
Lorne Nystrom NDP Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK
Madam Speaker, I wish to say a few words on the bill before the House today. I am glad the solicitor general is in the House. Maybe he will take a serious note of some of the changes that people want made in the legislation.
I want to begin by saying that the bill is known as the public safety act, 2002. It replaces Bill C-42 which was introduced of course in the wake of the great tragedy in the United States on September 11. Today marks the official end of the cleanup of ground zero in New York. The appropriate ceremonies will take place there sometime today.
I suppose we can say that the bill represents an improved package for public safety initiatives over what we had in the previous package, which was the government's response in the wake of September 11.
September 11 was a great tragedy for the people in the United States. It was also a great international tragedy. Many people died, including many Canadians. I think some of the reaction of September 11 was to overreact in terms of our response to a very legitimate fight against terrorism.
I think the very first bill the government brought in was a bill of great overreaction. I guess that is probably a fact now. The government then withdrew the bill because of widespread public criticism throughout the country. There were all kinds of objections from civil liberty groups, parliamentarians from all political parties in the House of Commons, many commentators, people in provincial governments and the like. Bill C-42 was withdrawn and Bill C-55 has been brought in to replace it.
We in our party oppose Bill C-55 because it is still in our opinion an attack on human rights. It gives unprecedented powers to certain federal cabinet ministers, particularly the Minister of Transport. I think that is a dangerous way to go.
I was in the House of Commons in the 1980s when we had great pride in enshrining a charter of rights in our constitution. We went through a great debate about individual rights, the freedom of speech, the freedom of mobility, what should be in the charter and what should or should not be enshrined in the constitution.
After a long and sometimes acrimonious debate we decided to enshrine a charter of rights in the Constitution of Canada to protect the individual rights and liberties of every Canadian regardless of background or where we came from.
I suggest to members that the bill before the House today is an attack on those human rights. It gives far too much power to the Minister of Transport and certain other ministers of the crown.
We live in a parliamentary democracy. I think we need a great deal of parliamentary reform in terms of democratizing this institution and democratizing our electoral system in Canada. To give more power to a cabinet minister who can exercise those powers through an edict basically, through an order in council, through permission from fellow cabinet ministers around a cabinet table in this very building, I think goes too far.
I also believe that the present criminal code and the police powers we have are adequate. The present laws are adequate to deal with any terrorist threat, real or perceived.
Once we give this kind of power to a cabinet minister, regardless of who that individual may be, there is always the possibility of abuse of that power. I remember the War Measures Act in 1970. I remember the Trudeau government of that day. Pierre Trudeau was a person who was committed to civil liberties and civil rights. Despite the fact that he talked a lot about a new democracy and participatory democracy he invoked the War Measures Act to deal with the Front de Libération du Québec in 1970.
It was an overreaction. The Government of Canada under Pierre Trudeau took a sledgehammer to open a peanut. There were troops outside the House of Commons. It was my second year in the House. All kinds of innocent people were arrested under the War Measures Act. If I remember correctly there was a member of parliament across the way who was arrested under the act. He was the leader of the teachers' union in Quebec at the time. Other members of the House of Commons might have been in similar situations. I knew all kinds of people who were arrested under the War Measures Act in an overreaction by the federal government.
The leader of the opposition at the time, Robert Stanfield, supported the invocation of the act. When he left public life he said the biggest mistake he had made in his political career was to get up and support the invocation of the War Measures Act by then Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau and the Liberal Party. It was an overreaction.
I was one of the 16 members of parliament who stood in the House in opposition to the act. There were 23 of us in the NDP caucus and 16 of us stood in opposition to the invocation of the act. A feeling of hostility greeted us from some members of the House and many members of the public because of the fear being whipped up throughout the country at the time.
The government already has awesome powers. It and the military have tremendous powers under existing law. The criminal code gives police powers that are broad in scope. We have seen those powers exercised in the past. Additional powers do not need to be given to the Minister of Transport and other cabinet ministers to deal with the threat of terrorism.
There is nothing as fundamental as individual freedoms and civil liberties. That is why so many people are concerned about Bill C-55. That is why it should not be passed in the House of Commons before we recess on June 21. Sober thought should be given to the bill by all members of parliament over the summer months. I hope when we come back in the fall the Government of Canada will withdraw the bill and find it is not necessary in terms of security, peace, justice and freedom in our country.
Many of the freedoms we have were hard fought for and difficult to achieve. Taking them away by giving a cabinet minister this kind of power would be the wrong way to go. The powers the government wants to give itself are unnecessary. They would be an infringement on the rights of the Canadian people. We are a proud country in terms of trying to defend minority rights. I mentioned the War Measures Act as a sad reflection on our history where the Government of Canada overreacted.
As I watched the hon. member from Vancouver East walk into the House of Commons I thought of another time a Canadian government overreacted. Japanese Canadians were rounded up during the second world war and shipped to internment camps in the interior of British Columbia because they happened to be of Japanese ancestry. Canadians of Japanese ancestry were arrested and put into internment camps. That is part of the history of our country.
I am not suggesting this would happen again but it has happened in the past. Giving this additional power to a cabinet minister and the Prime Minister would invite overreaction in the future. That is why our party does not want to see Bill C-55 through the House of Commons. Bill C-42 which was in the House before and after Christmas was widely criticized as being draconian and dangerous for the freedom and liberty of Canadian citizens. I am sure that is why the government did not proceed with it. There was a public perception that the bill was an overreaction. Unfortunately, Bill C-55 offers little improvement.
In fact, this is the same bill. It may be slightly different, but this is essentially the same bill. This is why we must hold an extensive debate in the House and defeat this bill. This is crucial.
I hope my hon. colleagues in the Liberal Party will at least listen to one of their own members, a prominent civil rights lawyer from Montreal who expressed deep concern in the House that the bill would give undue power to cabinet ministers and diminish the civil liberties of Canadians.
Where is the liberalism in the Liberal Party? Why do its members not get up and defend the freedoms of ordinary Canadians? Is it not ironic that a Liberal Party is bringing in this kind of draconian legislation? I appeal to members of the Liberal Party to get up on their small-l liberal legs to speak out against this draconian piece of legislation.
Michel Gauthier Bloc Roberval, QC
Madam Speaker, on a point of order. I apologize to the hon. member, but I will be brief.
We just heard on the news that authorities have invited the Hells Angels to join the official celebrations marking the 50th anniversary of the accession of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II to the throne.
Under the circumstances, I seek unanimous consent of the House for the following motion. I move:
That the House--
Public Safety Act, 2002Government Orders
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)
Consent of the House must be requested before moving a motion.
Is there unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to move the motion?
Michel Gauthier Bloc Roberval, QC
Madam Speaker, on a point of order. I do not think it is in order to ask for consent when the House is not aware of what the motion is about. I am entitled to read my motion, and I will start over again.
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.
I would like the House to pass this motion unanimously.
Public Safety Act, 2002Government Orders
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)
First, is there unanimous consent for the hon. member to move the motion?
Public Safety Act, 2002Government Orders
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)
There is no unanimous consent at this time to move the motion, but the hon. member could come back with his motion after consulting with other concerned parties.
Michel Gauthier Bloc Roberval, QC
Madam Speaker, I would like to understand. I sent the motion to parliamentary leaders of all political parties.
Now, you are telling me I do not have unanimous consent. I do not understand what--
Public Safety Act, 2002Government Orders
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)
The hon. deputy government whip on a point of order.
Jacques Saada Liberal Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Madam Speaker, on a point of order. I do not have any reservation about the content of the motion.
I just need the time to read it. I am on duty in the House today. I need to step back, check the motion, read it over, and come back in the House with my response. It is that simple.
Scott Reid Canadian Alliance Lanark—Carleton, ON
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We require unanimous consent to proceed whether the leader of the Liberal Party agrees or not. I do not, so that is the end of it.