Debates of May 9th, 2002

Public Safety Act, 2002

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have another opportunity to speak to Bill C-55 to reiterate some of the concerns I have. One of those concerns, which does dovetail with something that was just mentioned by the member for Calgary Centre, but which I note was actually originally mentioned by the Bloc Quebecois, the member for Argenteuil--Papineau--Mirabel, is the whole question of the interim orders as described in this legislation giving ministers the power to issue essentially regulatory orders. Under any act, the Quarantine Act, the pest control act, the environment act and the criminal code, that basically has no check for 45 days.

One of the things the Bloc Quebecois pointed out very early on in this debate is the fact these interim orders, according to a clause in Bill C-55, would be exempt from the relevant sections in the Statutory Instruments Act. In other words, the minister would issue essentially an interim order that could have an enormous impact and it would not require scrutiny by the Privy Council Office, which is the way things are done now, and it could be allowed to stand without cabinet approval for up to 45 days. I would agree that this is a very serious aspect of the bill that needs to be examined very carefully in committee.

I will say, though, that I think the bill is very defensible in what it tries to do. The member for Calgary Centre has said that the Emergencies Act covers most of the contingencies that might be contemplated by Bill C-55. There I would disagree, because I note that these interim orders do not speak of a national emergency. They speak of a situation of significant risk. That is quite different from what is contemplated in the Emergencies Act, which would be a state of war or a state of attack, the use of a nuclear weapon and that kind of thing.

What Bill C-55 addresses, and why these interim orders, I presume, are seen to be necessary, is a limited terrorist attack, if you will. I will just focus on one type of scenario that I think justifies what is attempted in Bill C-55, even if we do not agree with the means as we see before us.

The world has changed very significantly just in the last year with the realization that Canada, the United States and other western countries are vulnerable to a limited biological or chemical terrorist attack. We would have here, just as an example, that an interim order could be issued with respect to the Quarantine Act.

If we go to the Quarantine Act, we can see where the reasoning is coming from. It is that if there were a suspected limited attack, say on a city or wherever else, we would want the appropriate minister to be able to activate as quickly as possible whatever measures he or she deems necessary to contain the consequences of the attack. I think a biological attack is probably the most dangerous and the most difficult to really put our finger on, to even know that we are being attacked, so I think very rightly the government wants to provide means for a very quick response. That very quick response could involve the quarantining of an area and actually blocking it off so that whatever the problem is does not spread. It could require the shutting down of certain public services and it could require the imposition, the forcing of people to submit to medical examination.

These powers are very profound because they would interfere, we would all agree, with some of our fundamental civil liberties, but I think that in the kind of limited emergency that is now contemplated as a result of September 11 and, more precisely, the growth of international terrorism, also fueled, if I may so, by the Internet, it is now possible for terrorists to communicate over the Internet and get information over the Internet that was previously unavailable, so the world has become a significantly more dangerous place for limited attack.

I support the intention of the legislation. I support the intention of the interim orders. Where I have difficulty is that I think the interim orders, as was mentioned by members of the Bloc Quebecois, the member on our side from Mount Royal and now the member for Calgary Centre, are too wide open as they sit right now. I think when the bill goes to committee we will have to examine very carefully how narrowly we want to limit those emergency orders.

My own feeling is that they should be limited to no more than, say, five days. I would think that is a sufficient length of time for a prompt emergency response to a significant risk situation, whether it is biological, chemical or any other kind of terrorist attack. That would give time for the governor in council to kick in and to look over the order that has been issued by the minister.

It would also give time for the Privy Council Office to oversee it as well because we have to remember that in the Privy Council Office, even though as a member of parliament I sometimes get annoyed with what I feel is the constant finger of the bureaucracy on what we try to accomplish here, the reality is that there is an awful lot of collective wisdom in the senior levels, not only in departments like the solicitor general or Health Canada but also in the Privy Council Office. I would not like to see the senior bureaucracy cut out of the loop when Canada finds itself in a limited temporary emergency.

I would also say, though, that I would agree with the member for Calgary Centre that we should look very carefully at and make comparisons with Bill C-55 and the Emergencies Act. I would hope the committee would very, very carefully scrutinize the powers that are contained in Bill C-55. If there are instances where there is a broader question where a significant risk as defined in Bill C-55 really constitutes a broader emergency, then perhaps it should belong under the Emergencies Act. I think it is very necessary for the appropriate committee to compare very closely the reach of the Emergencies Act versus the intent of Bill C-55 in responding to what could be limited risk situations but very profound risks.

I would say that it is no coincidence that Bill C-55 also has provision for Canada ratifying the biological and toxin weapons convention. This, shall we say, is the name of the kind of threat that we have to maturely consider as parliamentarians, always mindful that we must not overreact to the national security or the public safety issues, because I think we would all agree that any limitations on civil liberties have to be very closely and carefully defined because the terrorists will win if we over-respond to these threats. We have to be very careful. I would say this affects all of parliament. I feel I am very much on both sides of the House on this issue. I think as MPs we have to find the most careful balance and set aside partisan considerations as we consider the bill.

Finally, in that context, I think the requirement to look at the passenger manifests of aircraft again reflects a reality that we can no longer ignore, but I point out that in this legislation it is very well defined. Parliament is authorizing the examination of passenger manifests only on aircraft, so I submit that this is not an extension into other areas of society. This is a very narrowly defined extension.

It is unfortunate but we are moving into a very difficult and frightening world. While I support what the government is trying to do here, the bill really needs to be examined closely in committee, particularly in the area of the interim orders.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe it is important to take part in this debate. I believe it is important to support the Bloc Quebecois' amendment to the amendment, which says:

this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-55—

The amendment to the amendment adds that the bill contains several principles:

—that violate human rights and freedoms, which have been denounced by the Privacy Commissioner—

First, I would like to point out the excellent job my colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel did of presenting the Bloc's position on Bill C-55.

He was very forceful while pointing to the fact that, by amending Bill C-42, the government had in part accepted the arguments presented by the Bloc, arguments which at first were made fun of by people who said that the Bloc was exaggerating.

We are happy to see that some of those arguments have been listened to. However, with regard to many other parts of this bill, not only have our arguments not been listened to, but the bill contains new elements that raise very serious concerns.

I will quickly remind our listeners, as my colleague did earlier, that this bill is made up of three main parts. I hope it will never become law. I hope also that every government member, including the ministers, will hear not only the various accents on this side of the House, but also the thrust of what is being said.

I would like to start by reminding the House that my colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel said that, in dealing with terrorism, there is no worse way of preventing such attacks than depriving us of our rights and freedoms.

What makes a democratic society strong is democracy. What makes a democratic society strong is respect for rights and freedoms, and citizens co-operating to insure proper respect for rights and freedoms, since they belong to every single one of us.

As I was saying, this bill is made up of three parts. The first one deals with interim orders; it has been vigorously condemned by the member for Calgary Centre. It gives certain ministers the power to make interim orders, a power we do not need, a power that does not make any sense, is not necessary and deprives the House of the capacity to be made aware of the reasons for such an interim order. These unlimited powers can be in effect for 45 days.

The second element of the bill deals with the famous issue of controlled access military zones. On this, we are quite clear, and we have been from the outset. Provincial governments, the Government of Quebec must be consulted before any of these zones are established.

Let us not forget that until now, the prevailing rule has been that military intervention is only undertaken when requested by a provincial attorney general. Therefore, we must not take advantage of the current situation to grant powers that violate the current constitutional rules.

The third element deals with privacy issues. This is what I would like to speak to. The first speech, made May 1, outlined the fears of the privacy commissioner, Mr. George Radwanski.

On May 7, he not only wrote the Minister of Transport, but made his letter public.

Here is what he wrote, and I quote:

My hope had been to avoid unnecessary public controversy by working together cooperatively, as had been the case with Bills C-44 and C-42. I regret that you have declined to take this course.

As you know, I have stated repeatedly since September 11 that I would never seek, as Privacy Commissioner, to stand in the way of any appropriate initiatives to enhance public security against terrorism, even if they entail some limitation of privacy rights. I have also stated, however, that the burden of proof must always rest with those who propose some new limitation on a fundamental human right such as privacy.

I remind the House that these are the words of Privacy Commissioner of Canada.

He goes on to say that in order to meet that burden of proof, he proposes four criteria. The first criterion is that the measure must be necessary; the second, it must be effective; the third criterion is that it must be proportional to the security benefit to be derived; and the fourth is that there must be no other, less invasive means to achieve the same objective.These are the four criteria that he set out. He then continues with real questions.

It must be noted that this bill gives the minister the authority to require any air carrier to provide information set out in the schedule. At this time, there are 34 elements, but it says that others could be added by the governor in council. Carriers are thus required to provide information that is in their control or that comes into their control within 30 days.

Not only is the carrier required to provide this information, the nature of which we know in part but not totally because other elements could be added, but there is a list of people within the government who, once they have the information, could disclose it to others. This is where it gets really scary.

I will now read section 4.82 found in the bill, which I am allowed to do.

A person designated under subsection (2) or (3) may disclose information referred to in subsection (7) to the Minister, the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, any peace officer, any employee of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, any air carrier or operator of an aerodrome...if the designated person has reason to believe that the information is relevant to transportation security. Any information disclosed to the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority or to an air carrier or operator of an aerodrome or other aviation facility under this subsection must also be disclosed to the Minister.

This information is disclosed to the RCMP or CSIS.

It is obvious that this kind of invasion of privacy to fight terrorism is unnecessary. It is very abusive. Therefore, it seems urgent to me that the government agree to work with the commissioner and accept to curb its appetite.

I just heard a member on the other side of the House say that these requests would be restricted to air travelers. Come on. There could be other acts. The fact that a person travels by plane does not mean that—

[André Harvey, Liberal, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Since my colleague is usually not one to exaggerate too much, I would like to let her know that among the excerpts from the commissioner's letter that she quoted, there might be one that she would accept to add to her list. This is what it is, strictly to keep the debate going—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

This is debate, not a point of order. The hon. member for Mercier.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if the member opposite was surprised by what I said, let me tell him that I was not surprised by what he just said. He wants to stop my final sprint, but the most important points have already been made.

As it stands, this bill is not acceptable. The government must once again go back to the drawing board. We agree with the fight against terrorism, but we do not agree with these unacceptable intrusions, which are a threat to democracy and rights and freedoms.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill C-55 and to express again the grave reservations of the federal NDP caucus in the House with respect to the purpose and intentions of this bill. I believe that these are reservations shared by many Canadians, certainly those who deal on an ongoing basis with upholding the rights of Canadians and our fundamental liberties which are cherished and for which we have fought long and hard.

All of us in the House are clearly interested in finding the appropriate balance between countering the threat of terrorism and upholding the rights and liberties of Canadians.

It is that balance that is in question today. It would appear to us that Bill C-55 tips the balance away from the whole question of ensuring that the rights and liberties of Canadians are not threatened and put aside in the pursuit of anti-terrorist measures for which there may not necessarily be a reason to believe they are helpful to the situation at hand.

All of us are interested in ensuring that our government has the means to address terrorist attacks and to respond to terrorist threats. That is a given.

Some parts of this bill certainly are important in that regard. I want to acknowledge that the government has addressed an important issued raised by many across the country, particularly provincial governments, ensuring that there are comprehensive parameters for terrorist hoaxes. It is very important to have provisions in the bill to counter such hoaxes which create havoc in the lives of Canadians.

There are other provisions obviously that are worthy of merit and consideration. However on balance it would appear that the bill goes far beyond that objective of achieving a balance which is so near and dear to the hearts of Canadians. That causes a great deal of concern on the part of many parliamentarians and Canadians.

I have four concerns that I want to raise briefly. They have been touched on by my colleagues, the member for Winnipeg--Transcona and the member for Churchill. I want to reiterate those concerns and express again our belief that the bill must be thoroughly reviewed and amended at the committee stage.

First, let us be clear that the bill gives extraordinary power to cabinet ministers. It subverts the parliamentary process in the interests of giving cabinet ministers free reign to make decisions without being accountable to parliament and without being open for scrutiny by the public at large.

Any government that asks for that kind of power to make that kind of legislative proposal has to set off alarm bells all over this place. Our question today is: Is it necessary to give that kind of broad reaching power to cabinet ministers and to what end? It would seem to me that the final goal, the end product with this kind of legislation, is not defined and there is no basis to lead us to believe that cabinet should be given those kinds of powers. Cabinet should not be given the right to subvert the parliamentary process, the democratic process and the rights and freedoms of individual Canadians.

Why give cabinet that kind of power, if there is no goal in sight that justifies that kind of subversion of democracy and the parliamentary process? It would seem to lead us to one of two options in terms of understanding the government's position. Perhaps the government is intent on just simply creating the illusion to Canadians that it is standing up tough to terrorism and is prepared to act on the threat of any kind of terrorist activity without really taking the necessary measures.

That is one option. Is this an exercise of illusory politics, is it about smoke and mirrors? That is a question that has to be addressed in this place.

Is the government using this very difficult time in the history of Canadians to actually advance an agenda to make changes that otherwise would not be acceptable? Is the government using the threat of terrorism to make changes in our laws and our responsibilities in this place that would not normally be tolerated? We very much question the delegation of responsibility to cabinet ministers to make decisions beyond the reach of parliament and outside the scrutiny of this place.

The second concern is with respect to the controlled access military zones. We hope this will be dealt with at committee. Our concern is whether or not this is an attempt to disallow peaceful protests when Canadians are outraged and upset with decisions made by the government and in response to international developments. Is this a way for the government to trample basic human rights under a legitimate law?

The third concern, which has been raised over and over again, is with respect to privacy and the questionable provisions in the bill to allow the government to give the RCMP and CSIS unrestricted access to the personal information of air travellers. The privacy commissioner, Mr. George Radwanski, has raised very critical questions in that regard. He has questioned the necessity of the government to resort to these kinds of provisions. He has also questioned the effectiveness of this legislative proposal.

The final point I want to make is whether the government is truly addressing the threat of terrorism in a meaningful way. Are we not skirting the issue and avoiding the difficult issues at hand? I would suggest the answer is absolutely, yes.

On all the key issues around preparedness for a bioterrorist attack or any kind of terrorist threat, the government has refused to actually designate and allocate the resources and establish the programs necessary to ensure that all of our frontline responders are able to move quickly and immediately on any terrorist threat.

That point was made loudly and clearly a couple of weeks ago by the firefighters when they were here on the Hill. They had one very simple request. That was for the government to allocate a mere $500,000 toward their ability to train frontline responders, firefighters, paramedics and police officers in the event of any kind of bioterrorist attack.

With all the money put on the table, the government made a great fanfare with respect to a budgetary provision to ensure that Canada was ready and able to respond where necessary. When it comes down to it however, each and every time the government refuses to put its money where its mouth is or to respect the fundamental needs in our communities today to be ready and able to respond immediately.

We could be talking about health care and the allocation of funds to emergency hospitals right across the country for a co-ordinated response to any kind of threat. We could be talking about firefighters and their simple request for a $500,000 annual allocation to train firefighters. We could be talking about ensuring that all frontline responders, firefighters, paramedics and police officers are equipped, trained and prepared to respond on a co-ordinated basis in the event of an emergency. The government fails each and every time.

I put that in the context of the bill. Is the purpose of the bill really to create the illusion of responding to a very critical issue while not really addressing it in any meaningful way? Is the government using a climate of fear to advance an agenda that gives it enormous powers that would not otherwise be acceptable?

These questions must be addressed by the committee. They must be discussed very seriously. This legislation is setting a precedent. This bill gives enormous powers to unelected people, to cabinet ministers, who do not have to report to parliament.

We are at risk of subordinating the fundamental cherished rights and freedoms of Canadians and subverting the parliamentary democratic process.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is extremely important for me to speak to Bill C-55 today.

To begin with, like my colleague from Mercier, I am opposed to Bill C-55 though I will support the amendment to amendment moved by the member for Rosemont--Petite-Patrie, which says:

—the bill reflects several principles that violate human rights and freedoms, which have been denounced by the Privacy Commissioner and are unrelated to transport and government operations, rendering it impracticable for the Standing Committee on Transport and Government Operations to properly consider it.

I would like to raise several points. Although I do not have time to deal with all of them, I will list a few.

Who has the power under this bill? What is the meaning of “designation, delimitation of a controlled access zone”? There is also the question of rights and freedoms. Where is the consultation process at, as well as access to passengers lists? I will deal with all these issues.

Mr. Speaker, every time you are in the chair I say to you that I come from the most beautiful area of Canada, Saguenay--Lac-Saint-Jean. Canadian Forces Base Bagotville, which is affiliated to NORAD, is located there. My house is 15 kilometers from the military base. It is a short distance.

One day, will the minister having all the powers to designate a controlled access military zone be able to include my house in that perimeter without my being informed? Will it be the same for everyone who live around Canadian Forces Base Bagotville? Laterrière and Jonquière are located very close to it.

I will be able to do things within the zone, but I will not be aware of doing so inside a controlled access military zone. I will not have the right to pursue legal remedies. It would be up to the minister or to the President of the Treasury Board to decide if I have the right to do so.

This is unconscionable. We are in 2002. We do not live in a totalitarian state. As the Liberals often like to say, we are in Canada and we have the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They recently celebrated the anniversary of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. With this bill, they are disregarding all the fine principles of the Access to Information Act; it is as though they had taken the charter, folded it up and shoved it into a drawer. The minister is saying, “It is I, the Minister of National Defence, who will determine what you will have access to from now on.”

First, the House considered Bill C-42. There was a general outcry about that bill, especially on the part of the Bloc Quebecois and the opposition parties. Everybody said that the bill made no sense whatsoever. We thought this government had listened, that it had understood the objections to Bill C-42.

When the government introduced Bill C-55, we were sure this legislation would show that it had really understood. But now we see that Bill C-55 is even worse than the previous one, because it goes against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It provides for the creation of controlled access military zones without any notice being given to the people living within the perimeter of the zone.

Tomorrow, I will take the plane to go back to my riding. Under this new legislation, if the governor in council, the RCMP or CSIS wanted to see the passenger list, the airlines would be compelled to give it to them, together with 34 other elements, and any further element the minister may require, at his own discretion.

This means that I will no longer have the right to move around on my own private business. This is very much contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I have listened to the leader of the Progressive Conservative party's discussion of war measures. We have experience of war measures; Quebecers are the ones who were arrested. I have friends who were. Without any summons, without any right to an attorney, they were arrested. They are still marked by their experiences. They were arrested under the War Measures Act.

A colleague from the government side has said, “Certainly, there are still some question marks, There will have to be discussions. They will have to be examined in committee”. Hon. members will surely remember what happened with Bill C-20 on referendum clarity. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice of the day claimed to be very open-minded when the bill was introduced. The minister's words at that time were, “Yes, we will be open. We will study it in committee. We will listen to witnesses and improvements will be made”. We know what happened .There were no changes made. The bill was passed as introduced. They rammed it through.

The way the government is acting is unacceptable. I always say that there no democracy in Canada anymore. Today, on May 9, 2002, with Bill C-55, I think that this government is giving itself disproportionate powers following the events of September 11.

We had laws to deal with what happened on September 11. In Canada, we had laws to fight terrorism. We only had to improve existing laws, use and enforce them. Why introduce this bill?

We know what this minister has done in the past. We are told not to talk about it, but all Quebecers and Canadians talk about it. He is the one who will be responsible for this legislation. This is serious. And he will be the only one. Parliament will not even be consulted.

Mr. Speaker, like me, you are an elected member. We represent our respective constituents, as do all members in this House, and we will not have the right to discuss what the minister will decide.

This is serious. If this is not a dictatorship, it is very close. This is why we, in the Bloc Quebecois, members from Quebec, those who defend the interests of their constituents, are saying to this government that it must withdraw this bill and go back to the drawing board.

It is not that we are opposed to protection against terrorism, as the Liberal member said. Of course, there are other approaches available today with the Internet, but we will never accept this bill as it stands. Let the government do its homework; then, we will get back to the bill.

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this issue today. I want to talk about a principle more than the details of Bill C-55, a principle that is very important to all of us; that is the power that the bill takes away from parliamentarians.

In the last few days we have seen the impact of the auditor general's report on a very specific issue that has became public. All Canadians now know about it. The reason it has become public is because the auditor general reports to parliament. If the auditor general reported only to the government and only to the Prime Minister, as does the ethics counsellor for example, we would never know about these accusations and grave concerns.

I believe the auditor general said that everything that could go wrong, did go wrong. She has called in the RCMP for an investigation. I am absolutely sure that if the auditor general only answered to the government and not to parliament, we would not have the same situation. It would be swept under the table. It would be downplayed and downgraded. The government would say, just like the ethics counsellor always has said, “Everything is just hunky-dory. There is no question, everything is great”, because the ethics counsellor answers to the Prime Minister.

The ethics counsellor has a huge job with huge benefits and all kinds of aspects of the job are very beneficial to the him. He can only keep that job at the pleasure of the Prime Minister, so if the he comes out with a report that criticizes the government or the Prime Minister in any way at all, he knows he is out of a job. It is a crazy thing, but the ethics counsellor has the biggest conflict of interest than anybody.

This is the problem with Bill C-55. It transfers more powers from parliament to the government. This has been a trend of the government from the time it was elected in 1993 until now. If there ever was a clear message, it is the comparison of the auditor general this week and how effective she is in bringing questions to the public and creating public awareness about concerns and wrongdoing by either officials or the government, and I hope the investigation will shed some light on that, as opposed to the ethics counsellor who does not report to parliament.

When issues come to parliament, we do not always get our way. In fact we in opposition very seldom get our way. However we do raise public awareness on issues and bring attention to them. We bring circumstances to light. because of parliament. Canadians start to learn about these things and they send messages to government. So even though we may not win every motion in every vote in the House, which we very seldom do, the impact is profound in that it goes across the country through the media, that message comes back to government and things change. This is a really good example.

Bill C-42 was brought before the House and parliament objected to it strongly on many issues. The government retracted Bill C-42 and brought in Bill C-55. That is another really important example of how the importance of parliament. Again, we did not defeat Bill C-42, but by putting public pressure on the government and by creating public awareness of the issues, it stirred up Canadians and they spoke loudly and clearly. It was not just us, or the privacy commissioner or other officials. Canadians spoke to the government because it was raised in parliament. If had not been raised in parliament, it would have slipped through and would have missed all the checks and balances, which are a fundamental pillar of our democracy.

Anything that takes power away from parliament is a mistake. When we are in opposition, we do not have a lot of power. We cannot defeat the government on issues but we have the power to create public awareness. If that power is taken away from us as parliamentarians, then our democratic rights and our ability to hold the government accountable has definitely been weakened, taking away one of the very fundamental pillars of our democracy.

I will compare the ethics counsellor with the auditor general. The only difference is that the ethics counsellor reports to the Prime Minister, owes his job to the Prime Minister, serves at the pleasure of the Prime Minister and will probably be fired if he does not come up with reports that the Prime Minister likes, as opposed to the auditor general who reports to parliament. She is not under any conflict of interest. She has no axes to grind. She looks at the facts and makes an appropriate report.

Again, I hone in on how important parliament is in that case. If it were not for parliament and the fact that the auditor general reports to parliament, we would not have that report which is so critical. It may just be the tip of the iceberg. I understand that the investigation by the auditor general may go on for a year.

Bill C-55 deals with transportation issues involving security. I come back to the same story. It will not go to the transport committee, the committee that knows transportation issues even though many aspects of Bill C-55 deal directly with transportation issues. The government has refused to let it go to the transport committee because people there know about transport issues and they will know that some aspects of the bill will not work and will raise questions and public awareness. This could again create fundamental changes which could improve it.

On a bill that would impact transport so much, why will the government not let it go to the transport committee? It is simply a contempt for parliament and its committees. There is no other reason. What could possibly be the excuse for not letting a bill like this go to the transport committee?

I point out that Bill C-42 was withdrawn. That was the previous bill that was supposed to do the same thing. It was adjusted and changed because of public pressure that was raised in parliament. Parliament is the source of public awareness for many of these issues. The committees are small parliaments. They bring out the issues. They call in witnesses to identify the problems. We do not win many votes in committees but we raise public awareness which is important so that Canadians affected can call their members of parliament, whether the member is a Liberal or whatever.

It is a very important step in our democracy that these bills, motions and issues be dealt with by committees and parliament. Even the privacy commissioner has grave concerns about this. It is amazing, he even wrote a public letter which said that the bill transferred too much power to the Minister of Transport and a significant amount power transferred to police. However will it go to the transport committee? There is not a chance because we might learn something. We might find something about it and raise public awareness on an issue which the government does not want raised. That is why it is not going to committee. It puts the power in the minister's hands.

It is incredible that interim orders can be made by the minister and he does not even have to get cabinet approval for 45 days. Why would there be 45 days to get cabinet approval when cabinet can meet within 24 hours notice any time? Why not four days or two days for cabinet approval? It can be in place for a year after that.

The pillar of democracy is checks and balances. We are the checks and balances. Parliamentarians are parliament and parliamentary committees are the checks and balances for the Canadian public. We are in a place where information is made available to Canadians. It is in parliament and the committees where the people testify, whether they support something or are against it. We take both sides and try to arrive at a logical decision. However, if we deny the right of parliament to discuss these issues and deny committees the right to examine the issues, then the public is denied the information it needs to know.

Members of the public need to know whether to support the issues, or call their members of parliament to say that they do not like an certain aspect of an issue, or to comment on something somebody said at committee or whatever. If we shut down the committees and parliament, we will have lost a very fundamental pillar of our democracy.

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to debate this important bill.

You will recall that on April 29, 2002, the government tabled in this House Bill C-42, which mentioned “military security zones”.

As a result of the hard work of the opposition and Canadian citizens, the government decided to withdraw that bill and replace it with Bill C-55, which is before us today.

With used material such as C-42 you cannot make something new, like the government would have us believe with Bill C-55 this morning.

I have a lot of concerns regarding Bill C-55. My first concern has to do with the minister's discretionary authority. It has to do with the powers given one or several ministers. The Minister of National Defence will have discretionary powers, and so will the Minister of Transport and the Minister of the Environment. It is of great concern to me.

Take for instance the issue of Afghanistan and Afghan prisoners. We believe the defence minister showed a little lack of judgment.

Let us add to that the fact that, if former minister Gagliano--I was going to say your friend, but I will say instead your former colleague--had had to make decisions under Bill C-55, given what we know of the conflict or problem that exists today in the Department of Public Works, it would have been rather scary, I think. His decisions might have been dubious.

The bill puts a great deal of unilateral power in the hands of ministers. What is the use of having the House of Commons then? What are we doing here in the House, what are we doing here in parliament? We wait, we look around, and we see what is going on. But we were elected to take part in decision-making.

The other concern that comes to my mind is the lack of consultation between the federal government and the provincial and territorial governments.

I would have liked the minister, before presenting such a bill or making a decision leading to the designation of a controlled access military zone, to at least pick up the phone and call his counterpart in Quebec to tell him what he intended to do. But no. He is the one who makes the decisions. He could not care less about those elected to the other levels of government and he will decide. This is wrong.

Another concern is the size, the dimensions of that controlled access military zone. The only criterion mentioned in the bill is that the zone may not be greater than is “reasonably necessary”. What does this mean? I am looking at my friend watching me and I am convinced that his view and mine are not the same, and I am convinced that the expression “reasonably necessary” does not mean the same thing to you, Mr. Speaker, as it does to me. We could argue about this for hours and just waste our time.

It does not make any sense to leave the power to decide the size of the military zone in the hands of a single person.

Everyone who lives within a controlled access military zone will surely be affected, in terms of their property and the problems that they will experience to go to work and to enter the zone, since controls will be very strict. Some people may even be denied access to this zone. These people will not have any legal recourse. They could lose money or their job, or they could experience psychological problems, but the government does not care and says “Tough luck, it is your problem. Deal with it”.

In Bill C-42, a clause provided that military security zones could be established for reasons relating to international relations, defence or national security. These reasons are not set out in Bill C-55. This means that the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Transport, or the Minister of the Environment could give any reason for their decision. Any reason making action reasonably necessary—this is a concept that can be stretched—may be given. One might go as far as to presume that, at the upcoming summit in Kananaskis, the Minister of National Defence could decide that, since heads of state from all over the world will be in attendance, there is a risk to national security and to the security of these officials, which justifies establishing a controlled access military zone.

As things now stand, this means that nobody has the right to take part in a peaceful demonstration. It is possible to demonstrate peacefully. Anyone who took part in demonstrations could be arrested and excluded from the controlled access military zone.

I have a lot of trouble not seeing this bill as similar to the War Measures Act. People remember what happened when the War Measures Act was introduced in Quebec in 1970. They remember it like it was yesterday. People were thrown in jail for no reason. They were simply thrown in jail without a trial, without the right to a lawyer, without anything, and were never compensated. We do not want to pass Bill C-55 and find ourselves with another War Measures Act on our hands.

Recently, one of my greatest concerns has been that the government is going to ignore the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The bill simply says that this bill will be exempt from the provisions of sections 3, 5 and 11. I am not the only one to be concerned about this part of the bill. Let us not forget that the privacy commissioner criticized this bill very harshly, publicly and in writing, saying that Canada was in danger of becoming a totalitarian state, a police state, a military state.

If those listening have been paying close attention, they will surely understand that I myself, like my Bloc Quebecois friends, and I think all the opposition parties, are completely opposed to this bill and are going to vote against it.

In conclusion, I thank the Chair for her tolerance and for letting me speak my mind on this bill.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak this morning on Bill C-55. First, I will offer my views as the Bloc Quebecois critic on the status of women, and thus give a woman's view of the consequences of this bill.

The Bloc Quebecois does not, of course, have anything against a public safety bill. We are, however, the spokespersons for thousands of Quebec women, and indirectly of Canadian women, who are concerned about their children and their families. For these women, safety is extremely important consideration, and it affects everything that impacts upon their quality of life.

The women of Quebec and of Canada want safety and security for their children and families, but not at any price. Women want it to be logical. They want the measures put in place to be transparent, just and equitable, as well as intelligent.

This bill contains provisions that are, in my opinion, problematic for women. My colleagues who have spoken today have clearly defined the three main elements that are problematical.

The first concerns the unlimited powers available to the minister or ministers, whether for health, emergency measures or transport. The second concerns the controlled access military zones, the third, privacy. Personal information will no longer be private, and the privacy commissioner has voiced objections to this.

As far as the first element is concerned, the unlimited powers to enact interim measures, the women of Quebec and of Canada still recall the way the Minister of National Defence did things, last December I think it was, in the case of the prisoners from Afghanistan who were taken to the base at Guantanamo. The women also recall the Minister of Defence's lack of discernment in concealing these operations from parliament and from the Canadian public at that time. The women want to know how far the ministers will go, the ones who will have to make the decisions under Bill C-55. They are worried.

They ask me “What will be the limits of logic and transparency reached by these men who govern, the decision-makers?” We may know, or we may not, but women are worried.

Women are wondering about the credibility of those involved, and of officials. Bill C-55 would enable officials to make decisions. This worries women. When it comes to controlled access military zones, once again, this has an effect on the quality of life of women.

Let us recall that the women in Quebec remember the October crisis of 1970. I was in my twenties at that time. I lived in a sector of Montreal where the army was present. It made an incredible psychological impact. I remember it as though it were yesterday. I also remember the climate of war and images that have stayed with me. I was living in a controlled access military zone at that time. There was a curfew in effect in my neighbourhood. I was monitored, as a young person; I was not free to go out as I pleased. I practically could not breathe.

Women in Quebec remember this and they are not sure that these controlled access military zones will not reproduce what they went through. Furthermore, if we look at the demands of women—and this is what I would like to focus on more—we see that the women in Quebec, like those in Canada, have taken part in marches.

The first march that caught the attention of the public was the bread and roses march that took place in 1995. Women were saying “We know all about poverty, we experience it every day. We often experience violence. We need a system that is more fair and equitable. We need to put measures in place for our children and our families. We need the government to pay more attention to our concerns”. And so in 1995 they marched. It was a small march that people may not have taken seriously.

In 2000 they marched. Not only did they march again, but they went and got support from around the world: women from 157 countries also marched. It was another step. They came here to tell us that the situation could not continue. There is still a great deal of poverty in the world and also in Canada, where there are 1,300,000 children who are poor. There is still a great deal of poverty among single-parent families with low incomes. The federal government's withdrawal from social housing has also created problems that are felt by women.

With respect to violence, the government of Quebec has established a great many measures to end violence and poverty. However, in Canada, the government has not responded to women's demands.

Let us imagine that, at some point, these women may want to go further. What guarantee do they have that they will be able to come and make representations to us in a context of transparency, justice, fairness and freedom? Women have reached such a degree of exasperation that they will have to go further. When they decide to march on the streets, will the government rule that, for reasons of public security, they are not allowed to do so? Will the government designate controlled access military zones?

As regards privacy, if women go too far, will authorities search for personal information on these women to label them as terrorists? How far will this go?

I am asking hon. members opposite to think about these three points, keeping in mind that women account for 52% of all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time I have spoken on Bill C-55. There was an earlier bill that I think the Bloc Quebecois succeeded in getting the government to drop. We were not satisfied with the first bill. We have tremendous reservations about Bill C-55, and many amendments are needed.

It is quite obvious, however, that the government had to go back to the drawing board. I could describe many of today's amendments as cosmetic. There is still a major problem with the substance.

I wish to begin my speech on a positive note. The Bloc Quebecois succeeded in getting the government to go back to the drawing board. I am going to focus primarily on the military aspect of the issue because, as members know, I am my party's national defence critic.

The first thing I wish to say about our victory has to do with the part of the previous bill which dealt with the designation of military zones, which could be based on all crown materiel or property. This meant that as soon as there was property anywhere in Canada, whether it was a military vehicle or a letter box, the government could step in and say, “We have a mandate to step in everywhere”.

Now, it has somewhat limited the scope of this provision by restricting it to military materiel. For us, this is already a victory. Not everything about the bill is negative either. I should mention that the Bloc Quebecois agrees completely that reservists, of whom there are now approximately 18,000, should be able to go back to their old job when they return from a theatre of operations or a period of training with the Canadian forces.

I felt that there was one oversight. A public affairs network at the Department of National Defence encouraged employers to release reservists and take them back. But there was no obligation on employers to do so. I think that it is a good idea to allow reservists deployed with the Canadian forces to return to their job upon returning from a theatre of operations or training.

However, with respect to the bulk of the provisions concerning controlled access military zones, we no longer see anything particularly positive about them. We must never lose sight of the fact that one man is going to designate these zones, and that that man is the Minister of National Defence. Even though this is limited to military materiel, I do not think it is an exaggeration to think that, if there are several trucks or a military convoy somewhere, a controlled access military zone could be designated.

In my opinion—and I often give the example of the Quebec City port—, a military zone could overlap onto an adjacent non-military area. Starting from the Naval Reserve building it could include a part of Old Quebec, with all the possible negative impacts that this could have.

The minister keeps coming back to the same example, the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen. Personally, I am convinced that if such a bill were adopted and if an American, allied or British ship were to enter the port of Quebec City, the military zone could go from the Naval Reserve as I was saying, to a part of the Old Quebec sector, with all the inconvenience you can imagine.

We believe that the current minister has misled the House, and this was said in a minority report from the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. On the issue of the Afghan prisoners, we remember that the minister supposedly mixed up the dates. So can we trust this man's judgment? It is most doubtful and highly debatable.

And that is not all. It does not matter who is Minister of National Defence, the fact that the power to create these zones is given to one man only creates a problem. Of course, they will tell us that this will be done on the recommendation of the chief of defence staff. That might be the case, but a recommendation is just that, a recommendation, and in the end, it is the minister of National Defence who will be making the final decision.

Thus it is important to understand that he is the one who will decide everything. Moreover, he will decide everything within such a large concept that, in the part about the controlled access military zone, we find the expression “reasonably necessary” three times. No one can define what is “reasonably necessary”. There are 301 members sitting here and, on any given issue, they all have a different perception of the action that is “reasonably necessary” to take.

This means that too much power is given to one man. We give him “reasonably necessary” powers on the military zone, its time limit, its designation, its dimensions and its renewal. We believe this is going much too far.

There are also other concerns. Can this type of bill and some parts of it meet the test of the charter of rights and freedoms? It is not certain.

The minister will decide about the zone's determination, time limit and dimensions. After that, he is the one who will decide about designating a zone. He will have 23 days to inform people. Once again, for reasons of national security, the Minister of Defence might decide not to inform anyone. Some provisions provide that people who are in these zones, even unknowingly, may be expelled manu militari; they may be forcibly removed from the zone. Some provisions provide that, if they suffer damage or injury, no action may be taken against the government.

When I say we have serious concerns as to whether this meets the test of the charter of rights and freedoms, this is this type of conduct that makes us say this. In our society, everyone should be able to defend himself and say: “I have been hurt and I will take action against the government”. The government says that they will not be able to do so. We believe that this is a very serious violation of the charter of rights and freedoms.

There could be problems with livestock and vehicles and even more serious issues in the farming industry. The minister could designate an area, not tell anyone and extend the zone from a military establishment to civilian territory. People could then be told, “We moved your vehicle somewhere else. It was damaged, not too badly though, but you cannot take any action against us. We get to decide”.

A single man, the minister, gets to designate these zones, to determine the period during which the zones will exist as well as the dimensions of the zones; he also gets to decide whether or not to inform people. If you happen to be there, you can be removed. If you suffer damages or injuries, no compensation has to be handed out. One has to seriously question if that would meet the test of the charter of rights and freedoms. Personally, I do not think so.

If the bill is passed, it will not take long for some people to challenge it before the courts and argue that it is in violation of our fundamental rights and freedoms.

As the House can see, I focused mainly on the issues for which I am responsible, as national defence critic. I also join with my colleagues in pointing out that many other parts of this bill are questionable and would have a hard time meeting the test of the charter of rights and freedoms.

For all these reasons, I urge all the members to amend the bill, but mostly to listen carefully during the committee meetings so that we can really tone down this legislation. As the bill stands now, it would be very hard for the Bloc Quebecois to support it.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to again speak to Bill C-55. I am pleased to speak to the proposed subamendment because it addresses a crucial aspect of the bill that has raised concerns in the House and throughout Canada.

Canadians and people worldwide have been trying to address security issues and the fears they have as a result of terrorism. Initially after September 11 people wanted to do anything they could and to take no chances whatsoever. That is fair enough. However no one in their wildest imagination thought it would be open season for the RCMP and CSIS to have access to the kind of information Bill C-55 suggests they should have access to, at least not without safeguards to ensure oversight so the rights of Canadians are not unjustly infringed on.

The issue in the subamendment, as the privacy commissioner has touched on rather strongly in the last week or so, relates to airline passenger lists. As the transport committee dealt with security issues after September 11 we met with the privacy commissioner. He voiced concerns about information being requested by the U.S. with regard to individuals travelling into the United States. Generally at that point there was acceptance that some information should be available. No one objects to the right of another country to know who is entering it and how they are coming in. People entering a country must have passports or some kind of identification. That was not an issue.

The bill before us would give the RCMP and CSIS access to airline passenger lists. This cannot be seen as restricted to airline passenger lists. The bill talks about regulations that would provide a good deal of information. However I will speak specifically to the issue of providing airline passenger lists to CSIS and the RCMP. They should check them over if they think a terrorist or someone related to a crime might be on board. I do not think Canadians would object, even though a terrorist would probably not put his occupation as terrorist or indicate he was going into the U.S. for the business of terrorism.

However it is a fair complaint. We should at least look at the lists to see if anyone can be identified as a problem. However that is not what would happen. The RCMP and CSIS could keep the lists for whatever length of time and track any passenger on them. They could track their movements from week to week, month to month or year to year. They may think it suspicious that certain businessmen fly to New York or wherever too many times a year. They may decide it is an issue and track them to see what they are doing.

Quite frankly, Canadians have a problem with that. If someone is not a known criminal the RCMP and CSIS should have no right whatsoever to track them. If they are involved in a criminal investigation and want to track a specific person, so be it. However if there is no criminal investigation related to justifiable reasoning it is not acceptable that every person in Canada on an airline passenger list have the information released to CSIS and the RCMP to do with it what they will.

There are those who say if one has not committed a crime one would not have to worry about it. However, I would suggest that while I would not be committing a crime, I would have a problem with someone being able to track what I am doing, because, quite frankly, it is my business. It is a right in a democratic country to be able to move freely. It is a right for me to be able to go to another country. I have to notify that country that I am going there, and that is fine, but I do not think it is right and just that my movements should be tracked.

I am also greatly concerned that if this is allowed to happen on the issue of airline passenger lists, are we then going to allow the RCMP and CSIS access to the records of all patients going into hospital out of the fear that someone might have come in there with a particular injury? Then they can track who is in the hospital and they can see if this injury is related to this type of event that happened there and that type of event that happened here.

It is not as if it is not the slippery slide down the slope. It is. It is critical to the civil liberties of Canadians. It is critical to a free and democratic society. Quite frankly, I do not want persons such as Osama bin Laden and other terrorists to impose on my freedoms and my democracy. That should not happen. If we in our democratic societies now must worry that our movements are going to be tracked and that we will have the heavy hand of either the law or whatever systems on us just because someone wants to have that information, just because they think they may be able to find something, that is unreasonable.

That, I believe, is what the privacy commissioner spoke to. There are those who have criticized and have said there is no reason to worry, but if I want to get a specialized perspective on something I may not know all the consequences of, I like to know that I can go to someone and get that information, a specialist in the field per se. The privacy commissioner is a specialist in that field. He has seen things happen in our country in different situations. He can identify possible things that might happen that some of us would not even see, because he has already dealt with those types of instances. I am willing to accept his concerns as just concerns that the civil liberties and the privacy of Canadians are being imposed on.

Quite frankly, I think that the privacy commissioner was a reasonable man when he was before the transport committee on the issue of security. He was reasonable in his presentations. He also cautioned us that we should be concerned if countries started wanting more and more information. That is reason for concern. I think he was being reasonable and I think he is reasonable in his concerns in regard to the privacy issue related to Bill C-55. I hope that we will have much further discussion on it.

I believe that Bill C-55 is to go to a special committee now. Again, I hope that what we will see on that special committee is a variety of people from different aspects within parliament, rather than having the bill go to the transport committee. There are those who know how I felt about an issue of such great importance for civil liberties going to the transport committee. It is important that we have people on the committee who will give us a good perspective regarding the bill when they delve into that matter.

I will now give my colleague from the Conservative Party an opportunity to speak.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It would seem that the hon. member for Churchill has decided what the speaking order is to be, so we will hear from the hon. member for Brandon-Souris.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for Churchill for allowing me to speak and, through the Chair, let me say that I have nothing but the utmost respect for the Chair, and I thank you for this opportunity, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly agree with a lot of what was said earlier by the member for Churchill. Canadians take a lot of their rights for granted. We seem to be living in a world where we just assume that all the rights we have had in the past will simply continue in the future. Bill C-55 speaks to some degree, perhaps, about the impacts on some of those rights. I think it is very important that not only do we have the debate today but that we continue with the debate and certainly with the ultimate opportunity of either changing the bill or not having it come forward, because it is a very dangerous bill, which in my opinion certainly presents the opportunity for impacting on civil liberties and rights. We are becoming too complacent. We are putting too much faith in the government, which is unfortunate because the government certainly has not done anything to allow for that faith to be put in it.

There are a number of areas in the legislation which I want to talk to, but first I think it is necessary to say that all of us in the House abhor terrorism. We abhor what we see going on around us right now and we certainly abhor what happened on September 11. We understand that there must be certain laws and opportunities for our police and governments to take swift action when necessary, but there has to be a check and balance. There has to be a piece of legislation that is well balanced and which absolutely ensures that our civil rights as Canadians are protected when we are trying to control terrorism around us.

We have had the piece of legislation that came forward as Bill C-42. We on this side suggested at that time that Bill C-42 was nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction of the government. After September 11, a whole bunch of people cloistered themselves in some smoke filled room and decided to put forward legislation that would allow the government to go forward, with an impact on all our rights and civil liberties.

When it went to committee, Bill C-42 got no support. It had no support from any of the witnesses who came forward. It had no support from any of the stakeholders. In fact, not only did it have no support from the opposition, but there was no support from government benches. Bill C-42, which the ministers on that side of the House had argued was absolutely, functionally necessary in order for the government to do its job, was simply pulled from the order paper.

Why, then, should we believe the government today when it says that Bill C-42 was flawed but Bill C-55 is absolutely perfect? I can assure the House that Bill C-55 is not absolutely perfect. If anything, it probably is no better than the Bill C-42 legislation that has been pulled by the government. I assume Bill C-55 will be pulled as well at some point and, thankfully, will not be passed by the House.

Those people who had the opportunity to listen to my leader, the right hon. member for Calgary Centre, heard him make the argument that in fact we already have legislation in place in the House with the government and it does have that balanced approach with respect to terrorism and civil liberties. That obviously is the Emergencies Act, a 1998 act that speaks to the necessity to have legislation and to have legislation that still protects the rights of individuals.

There are four areas I want to talk about. The first area, in which there has been a correction, is the fact that Bill C-55 was to go to the transport committee. It was our belief, and ultimately the belief of the rest of the House, that the transport committee was not the right place for a very serious piece of legislation to end up. By unanimous consent of the House it was agreed that it should go to a special legislative committee, a committee that will be struck simply to look at this piece of legislation. As a matter of fact I am told that the Speaker will be appointing the chair of that legislative committee. As far as I understand it, the chair will be an individual respected by all of us in the House, although the chair probably has not been named yet since this was just put in place yesterday. It will be a good first step to have the bill go to the legislative committee, not the transport committee.

The second point, which I have already alluded to, is that the legislation is absolutely not necessary. We currently have the Emergencies Act to fall back on, in which the police are given the proper powers and the civil liberties of Canadians are still protected.

The third, and probably the most poignant, point of this legislation is the amount of power it puts in the hands of individual ministers, heaven forbid. I know that Canadians have a great deal of respect for politicians: A recent poll has shown that 70% of them believe we are corrupt, but the Prime Minister has sent out his little minions to tell them politicians are not. However, we lead by example and unfortunately the example at the top, the current government, has a tendency to show that corruption pervades it.

I say that not necessarily in a derogatory way. The fact is that Canadians do not trust politicians. Seventy per cent of them have already said that by poll. Why would Canadians trust one minister to be able to put in interim orders with no checks and balances and which parliament will not be required to debate and agree to? Both the minister of defence and the transport minister will be given powers that are not seen today in this legislative government.

The Minister of National Defence has not really endeared himself to the Canadian public. They do not see him as a terribly competent individual and they do not have a lot of trust in him, but this man would be allowed to file an interim order that would be in effect for 23 days without anybody knowing about it. It could be in effect for 45 days without any cabinet approval. This interim order, unless specified in the order, could be in effect for one year. A minister of this House would have that power.

As the member for Churchill said, honest Canadians will ask themselves why they should have concerns about this power. I am sure that each and every one of us in the House believes that we are honest people, but that still allows the minister to put an interim order into effect that could affect each and every one of us. I find that absolutely abhorrent and certainly I feel that it is way beyond what people in our country really need.

The legislation itself is a grave danger. It is an abhorrence to me and to my party. We will fight this every step of the way, not because we do not believe there is a need to control terrorism but because we seriously believe the legislation is already in existence in the House, legislation with checks and balances.

The privacy commissioner has already fired off alarms about the legislation specifically with respect to the area of airline travel, but there are many more areas within the legislation that we have to deal with. I am glad it is to go to a legislative committee. I really wish and I hope beyond hope that all stakeholders will make their voices heard. I hope they come to committee and put forward their concerns about how they see a government out of control.

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

Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to participate in this debate on Bill C-55, the Public Safety Act, which is aimed at giving the Minister of National Defence the authority to designate controlled access military zones.

It must be an important bill since, as you know, it amends 20 other acts.

When a bill amends that many acts, it has an impact on the whole government since just about every single one of its departments is affected. Indeed, as this bill amends other acts, it is not easy for ordinary people to understand its total impact. To do so, they would have to read the 20 acts in question.

Here is an overview of the acts concerned. Of course Bill C-55 amends the Aeronautics Act, but il also amends the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority Act; the Canadian Environmental Protection Act; the Criminal Code; the Department of Health Act; the Explosives Act; the Export and Import Permits Act; the Food and Drugs Act; the Hazardous Products Act; the Marine Transportation Security Act; the National Defence Act; the National Energy Board Act; the Navigable Waters Protection Act; the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act; the Pest Control Products Act; the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act; the Quarantine Act; the Radiation Emitting Devices Act to authorize the minister to make an interim order if he is of the opinion that immediate action is necessary; the Canada Shipping Act and the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, obviously the one that was amended; as well as the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention Implementation Act.

This is not a simple piece of legislation. It is a very broad legislation and it is extremely important.

Previous speakers mentioned the changes or additions proposed in the bill. The member for Saint-Jean talked about the powers given to the minister. I want to focus mainly on the fact that nowhere in this federal legislation is the minister required to consult with the provinces and to obtain their consent.

I know the hon. member for Chicoutimi--Le Fjord will be interested in this. I listened to his speech yesterday, and I told him earlier today when I met him that I found it a bit ironic.

The member used just about the same arguments we do when we complain about the federal government intruding upon provincial areas of jurisdiction, as it did with the highway infrastructure program and other initiatives.

However, the roles were reversed and the member for Chicoutimi--Le Fjord was saying, “We are having a hard time with the Parti Quebecois. It will not let us do as we please in these areas”. Unbelievable.

I respect the member for Chicoutimi--Le Fjord for all his hard work, but I think he has gone a bit too far. They intrude upon a provincial jurisdiction, but they probably hope that the Government of Quebec will not say anything or, at best, fully co-operate, even though this goes against the spirit of Confederation.

I had to digress for a moment, because the member was here and was listening to me. Now, the issue of military zones reminds me of 1970 and the War Measures Act. Young people may not realize this, but it happened not so long ago.

Members will recall that Pierre Elliott Trudeau was instrumental in our having the charter of rights and freedoms. Before implementing the War Measures Act, he waited until Premier Bourassa requested it. This time, no, the provinces are not needed. There is no requirement for consultation with the provinces. Anyway, there is no reference to it in the bill anywhere. The way this government operates, when there are no set conditions, when there is no obligation to consult the provinces—and even when there is, it is a cursory consultation, just for appearances—consultation means informing. That is not the definition I learned when I went to school. What I learned I consider to be the right one.

Consulting means more than that. Consulting means talking to each other, reaching agreement. There is no mention of such a thing in this bill.

There is the matter of the charter of rights and freedoms. One of my responsibilities in the Bloc Quebecois is to represent my party on the subcommittee on human rights and international development. I often hear people from the government side, in delegations or elsewhere, boasting about Canada's great sense of democracy. I will grant them one thing: we believe that other countries must respect democracy, human rights, and basic freedoms.

However, we, the opposition members in the House, are being asked to support a bill where everything would be determined by the minister. He would have 45 days to inform people affected by a controlled access military zone. This is obviously talking out of both sides of the mouth. We are telling other countries how they should behave with regard to human rights and democracy. But this government would be even more respectable if it practised what it preaches. Nothing is less credible than a person who sets lofty objectives but does the opposite. How can one give any credibility to such a person? In this case, we are talking about legislation.

I really do not have anything against the current minister; like others, he will move on. After him, there will be other ministers, and perhaps other parties in office, but the act will remain. We know how long its takes to pass legislation. Generally, legislation remains in force for a long time. It is one of the problems we see with this bill.

I remember the other antiterrorism bill. Members on this side of the House wanted these measures to be temporary. They asked for a sunset clause. There is nothing about that in this bill. The minister is given enormous powers. It can take 45 days for anyone to be informed. There is nothing in the bill that says that people who are affected or whose property is affected can be compensated. And there is no right of appeal.

We all agree that we must protect ourselves against terrorism, but we must also protect our democracy and our individual freedoms.

[Marcel Gagnon, Bloc, Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I did not know that it was my turn to speak. I wanted to add my voice to those of my colleagues who already spoke to Bill C-55, which replaces Bill C-42 that was withdrawn by the government on April 29, 2002.

When we see such a bill before parliament and the powers that the government will have under this bill, when we see the extent to which the government currently abuses these powers, we are entitled to oppose this bill, which provides for the creation of controlled access military zones.

We have seen what happened with other acts—my colleague talked earlier about the War Measures Act that was used in 1970—and now we have this bill that would create a military zone without any consultation with the provinces concerned. Personally, I think that this is an unbelievable abuse of power by the government.

It has been mentioned that this bill is so important that it amends some 20 acts dealing with virtually all economic activities in our country. This has an impact on these activities. It has an impact on the environment and on the whole economy. This bill amends acts that are very important for the administration of Canada and the provinces.

This power to change such major laws is in the hands of a single minister. One minister may, for security reasons, decide to turn everything upside down and to designate military zones throughout the country and Quebec.

I believe that such a bill must undergo extensive consultations. We must consult everyone in activity sectors that the bill may affect. Of course, we must consult the provincial governments that will have to face such problems on their territory, without even being informed beforehand.

I believe that the government has given itself abusive powers since September 11. One might wonder if, in wanting to control terrorism, the government is not becoming itself a terrorist. I find that the means that the government is using to control the territory and prevent terrorism are dangerous. The remedy should not become more dangerous than the illness.

Bill C-55 is evidence that the government is abusing its prerogatives and its authority to show toward the country in general, and the Quebec territory in particular, a military control that is absolutely undesirable to us.

I believe that Bill C-55 must be withdrawn, as Bill C-42 was previously. Before going so far in the protection, or so-called protection of the territory, the government must absolutely take the time to consult the people, to see what the needs are exactly and to give itself the means necessary to do so without abusing its power. I have absolutely no confidence in the government to simply act this way.

When such powers are provided to a single minister, we can expect abuse. It will be too late to criticize, and we will have to live with it.

For all these reasons, and given the number of laws that will be affected by this bill, I join my colleagues in saying that we are against Bill C-55. It is abusive and must be withdrawn.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is the second time that I rise to speak to Bill C-55. The first time was at the second reading stage. We are still at the second reading stage, but an amendment has since been moved by an Alliance member, and an amendment to the amendment, by a Bloc Quebecois member.

For those just joining us, I will read the amendment again, as modified by our amendment to the amendment:

That this House declines to give second reading to 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, since the Bill reflects several principles that violate human rights and freedoms, which have been denounced by the Privacy Commissioner and are unrelated to transport and government operations, rendering it impractical for the Standing Committee on Transport and Government Operations to properly consider it

I sincerely thank my colleague from Rosemont--Petite-Patrie, who brought this amendment to the amendment forward. The few words we have added reflect the concerns of all Canadians and Quebecers and of many parliamentarians regarding Bill C-55. As for the privacy commissioner, he was very critical. I will read something I had prepared for my previous speech.

Some were pretty harsh in criticizing Bill C-55, including the privacy commissioner. He stated clearly that the government drew its inspiration from practices commonly used by totalitarian states. The commissioner did not even give this new anti-terrorism legislation a passing grade.

Members will certainly agree that such an analysis is not very good for a government, a Liberal government of course, but also and more importantly one that claims to be liberal, especially since it cannot label as partisan the comments made by the privacy commissioner.

In the speech that I made last week, I asked two questions about Bill C-55. First, is Bill C-55 different from Bill C-42? The answer is rather obvious. They are basically the same. Second, is Bill C-55 an improved version of C-42? Unfortunately, it is not.

Since I have the opportunity to do so, I will give a part of my speech that I did not have time to deliver. The Chair monitors time very closely. As we will see, my concerns fully justify adding the amendment to the amendment.

The difference between Bill C-55 and Bill C-42 is that, somehow, Bill C-55 is worse, particularly as regards personal information.

In the first draft of this bill—because everyone agrees that C-42 was a preliminary draft for C-55—enormous power was given to a single person, namely the Minister of National Defence. At a time when the authority delegated to the executive branch is being questioned, at a time when people are asking the legislative branch, that is all of us here, to have more of a say in the decision making process, how can the government justify a bill that puts so much power in the hands of a single person?

The situation is all the more alarming because the decision to suspend people's fundamental rights will—believe it or not—be based on the minister's judgment. This is rather disturbing, is it not?

I want to take a more in depth look at the communication of information. When I read the legislation, I reread a sentence three times, because I could not believe my eyes. I even read it out loud, thinking that my eyes might mislead me, but not my ears. Unfortunately, the result was the same.

The expression “reasonably necessary” is used regarding decisions on the collection of information and the persons who will have access to this information. What does the term “necessary” mean?

This notion is left to the judgment of a person who, in a particular situation, might find it reasonable to give my credit card number to the RCMP. I am sorry, but I do not find that reasonable.

I must admit that I was more than worried when I reread the infamous expression “reasonably necessary”. The context to which this expression is applied is the following.

It is provided that the information thus collected and that could be transferred to the RCMP and to CSIS should theoretically be destroyed within seven days, which is the time it took God to create the world. Seven days is “reasonably necessary”.

However, it might not be “reasonably required” to destroy this information, and for which purposes? For the purposes of transportation security.

According to which criteria will it be determined, and who will make the final decision on this issue? The bill is silent on this matter; the Minister of Transport will rule unchecked.

Should we be concerned about that? I believe we should. When the privacy commissioner says that these measures are a dramatic expansion of privacy-invasive police powers without explanation or justification, I wonder to what kind of trick the Minister of Transport, even with the help of the whole cabinet, will resort to justify that it is reasonable not to destroy my credit card number.

This debate is not over. Last week, I asked two questions. Is Bill C-55 different? We can fairly say that the differences are minor, and that this bill is more of the same, making it increasingly clear that the government does not know how to fill the legislative agenda. This is cause for concern, especially when we know that barely two years have gone by since the last election.

Here is my second question. Is Bill C-55 an improvement over Bill C-42?

Let us face the fact: this new bill does not meet the expectations we had, and will not dissipate our concerns. At a time when respect for each other is more critical than ever, we cannot tolerate that fundamental rights and freedoms be trampled, under the pretence of trying to fight terrorism. The citizens we are seeking to protect should also be protected from abuse.

However, absolutely nothing is telling us that it will be the case should—

[The Deputy Speaker]

I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but her time is up.

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on the subamendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the subamendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the subamendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.