Debates of May 13th, 2003

Budget Implementation Act, 2003

[The Deputy Speaker]

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 18. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon.members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

The recorded division on Motion No. 18 stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motion No. 19.

The votes are deferred until later this day following question period.

The House resumed from May 9 consideration of Bill C-17, 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, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of Motion No. 6.

Public Safety Act, 2002

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central to address Motion No. 6 at report stage consideration of Bill C-17, 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, otherwise also known as the public safety act.

Like its predecessors, Bills C-42 and C-55 of the last session, Bill C-17 is an omnibus bill that amends or introduces nearly two dozen acts within the jurisdiction of nearly a dozen federal departments or agencies.

Motion No. 6 is very interesting. It takes the interim orders philosophy in Bill C-17 and ensures that will be included in the Pest Control Products Act in the event of that act getting royal assent before Bill C-17 does. Let us think about this. The Pest Control Products Act was written without interim orders and now the government is so concerned that it has modified Bill C-17 to apply to a bill to be passed in the future. It is fascinating.

In many cases, in the place of specific provisions designed to reassure the travelling public and the public in general, the bill gives four ministers the authority to issue interim orders. A very significant portion of Bill C-17 deals with interim orders. Ten parts of the bill amend various statutes to provide a new or expanded power permitting the responsible minister to make interim orders in situations where immediate action is required. Essentially, the thinking from the government behind interim orders is “trust me”. In other words, it is saying, “Give me various undefined powers and when there's an emergency, trust me to do the right thing”. That is what the minister will say.

First, we cannot forget that the very same government that has taken over 19 months to react to September 11 is the one now saying “trust me”. Second, we should not overlook the fact that if the government really knew what it was doing, it would have clearly defined both its responsibilities and its powers. In the United States, the U.S. aviation and transportation security act was drafted just 10 days after September 11. However, even then, while a shocked America pondered the unthinkable crisis that had just happened, American legislators knew that “trust me” was not going to cut it with the American public.

The U.S. aviation and transportation security act is specific. It delegates powers but it also assigns responsibilities. It contains deadlines. It specifies the amount of money that may be spent on particular initiatives. It sets management objectives and requires regular evaluations as well as audits. It is very specific, not vague like the legislation that we are debating.

There is a clear understanding of who does what why, when, and with what authority. Checks and balances are present. The U.S. aviation and transportation security act is a planned, strategic response by a superpower to a defined threat.

In Canada Bill C-17 uses interim orders while the U.S. uses specifics. The interim orders all follow a similar pattern. They allow a minister, under certain circumstances, to make an order that would normally have to be made by the governor in council. Thus, when the chips are down and cabinet cannot meet, an interim order lets a cabinet minister take actions that would normally need cabinet approval.

In most cases in Bill C-17 the interim order must be published in the Canada Gazette within 23 days, must be approved by cabinet within 14 days, and expire at the end of the year. Similarly, an interim order must be tabled in Parliament within 15 days after it has been made.

Members from the Canadian Alliance, the Bloc, and the NDP tried to propose constructive amendments to Bill C-17 regarding interim orders when it was referred to the special legislative committee. In the case of 14 Canadian Alliance amendments put forward by our transportation critic, who has done a very good job, each was motivated by the spirit of the Emergencies Act. Its preamble reads, in part:

WHEREAS the safety and security of the individual, the protection of the values of the body politic and the preservation of the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of the state are fundamental obligations of government;

AND WHEREAS the fulfilment of those obligations in Canada may be seriously threatened by a national emergency and, in order to ensure safety and security during such an emergency, the Governor in Council should be authorized, subject to the supervision of Parliament, to take special temporary measures that may not be appropriate in normal times;

We therefore thought the standard of parliamentary scrutiny, laid down in the Emergencies Act, might be applicable to the type of situations in which interim orders might be made under Bill C-17. Subsection 61(1) of the Emergencies Act reads:

Subject to subsection (2), every order or regulation made by the Governor in Council pursuant to this Act shall be laid before each House of Parliament within two sitting days after it is made.

Subsection 61(2) reads:

Where an order or regulation made pursuant to this Act is exempted from publication in the Canada Gazette by regulations made under the Statutory Instruments Act, the order or regulation, in lieu of being laid before each House of Parliament as required by subsection (1), shall be referred to the Parliamentary Review Committee within two days after it is made or, if the Committee is not then designated or established, within the first two days after it is designated or established.

Each of the 14 amendments was motivated by the same philosophy: if during an emergency, the government can subject orders and regulations to parliamentary scrutiny within two sitting days after they are made, there is no reason why a lower standard should apply to Bill C-17. The Canadian Alliance was not alone in this thinking. A similar philosophy was advanced by the NDP and the Bloc.

It is my hope that the three parties might be able to agree on a common approach so that a higher level of parliamentary scrutiny may be offered to interim orders made by a government that wants us to trust it 20 months after September 11. However, the Liberal desire to escape parliamentary scrutiny appears intractable. Rather than agree to any new restrictions on interim orders, the only interim orders amendment that the Liberal members proposed in committee was the addition of clause 111.1 so that the interim orders would be included in the Pest Control Products Act.

In conclusion, the widespread use of interim orders is troubling. The government's reliance on interim orders shows that even 20 months after September 11 the Liberals are still unable to provide Canadians with the legislation to combat terrorism at home and abroad. Delegating broad powers into the hands of single ministers is a dangerous trend. The committee stage version of Bill C-17 is an improvement over Bill C-42 as first presented 17 months ago, but more changes, particularly in the area of increased parliamentary scrutiny, are required.

Canadians were prepared to sacrifice their liberties for the promise of increased scrutiny and security in the aftermath of September 11. That feeling has faded in the intervening year and a half. For this reason, the government would be wise to carefully consider increased parliamentary scrutiny on the same level as the Emergencies Act if it wants opposition parties to support Bill C-17.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time that I have spoken on this bill. Nor is this the first time that the Bloc Quebecois has spoken on this bill.

We have been quite good sports about this bill. We followed it at each stage. We spoke at second reading, we also participated in the special legislative committee that you presided over. Today, it is a pleasure to express our opinion again, because we think that we have much to contribute to this debate.

This bill is the result of other bills. There were several substantial amendments. Initially, it was called Bill C-55. Then it became Bill C-42, and it is now Bill C-17. So, this bill has evolved.

It is clear that the attempts, in the form of Bills C-55, C-42 and now C-17, resulted from the terrorist attacks on the twin towers in New York. Canada said that it would increase security to a certain extent. Provisions were put forward in the bill and were debated by the various parties in the House, and particularly in committee.

There is one other thing we have often heard in this House, which is that we must not interfere with the liberties of Canadians and Quebeckers so much that the people will say that the terrorists had won. We have agreed to slightly increased security, but we have not agreed to let the RCMP or CSIS intrude on the privacy of ordinary citizens. That is why we have been closely involved in this debate.

There were three main subjects of special concern to us in the bill. There was, for one, the military zones. I remember when the bill was first made public, the Bloc Quebecois strongly opposed the creation of controlled access military zones.

At the time, there was a question of having a controlled access military zone wherever there was some military infrastructure. The example of Quebec City was often used. There are military installations in the Port of Quebec and we did not think there were limits. The military zone could be extended to the entire lower town and Quebec,s parliamentary precinct. Thus, there were major problems.

On this, the Bloc can claim a victory, because we were the first to object to the military zones. In Bill C-17, the entire issue of military zones has been dropped. For us, that is definitely a victory.

Still, that does not mean we are now in favour of Bill C-17. There are other aspects of this bill on which we have expressed our disagreement and on which we have tried to present amendments to the legislative committee which you chaired. Unfortunately, our amendments to the bill were defeated.

There is one point we are particularly interested in, and that is interim orders. An interim order means that any minister of the crown can decide on an action to be taken without informing Parliament. What we are also looking at is the evolution of these interim orders, because they were already mentioned in Bills C-42 and C-55.

We are especially opposed because these orders are not subject to a charter test beforehand. For us, this is very serious. A cabinet minister can issue an interim order and does not have to check whether or not it passes the test of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. For us, that is a major problem. We see that the government has tried to make changes in this case, particularly on the duration of the order in council. In Bill C-42, the order ceased to be in effect after 90 days. In Bill C-55, it was down to 45 days. In the version of Bill C-17 now before us, we are at 14 days.

In addition, there is a requirement to table the interim order in Parliament. In Bill C-42, this was not mentioned. In the next two versions of the bill, there is a 15-day deadline. We see there has been some evolution.

The major problem, however, is still compliance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Normally, when someone turns up with an interim order, Privy Council can say “We will have a look at the interim order and decide whether it passes the charter test”.

The fact that this is not made part of the procedure is a real problem. Any minister of the Crown can announce, tomorrow, next week, once the act is in force, “I am issuing an interim order because I deem the situation to be urgent. As for the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that is not a problem, because I do not have to comply with it”.

The minister in question cannot be accused of acting in bad faith. This may be a concern for him, but he is not obliged to comply with Privy Council, and this poses a serious problem for us.

The third aspect that has been problematical for us from the start relates to the whole business of exchanging information on air travellers. We know that even the Privacy Commissioner has had a number of negative comments to make on this aspect of the bill. Once again, in committee we tried to modify the provisions of the bill that we are looking at today, in order to ensure some degree of privacy for Canadians.

I was not particularly satisfied with the responses we got from the RCMP and CSIS on their ability to gather information on me when I was flying and then pass it around as they pleased. There were two things that particularly bothered us. The RCMP could use personal information on all air passengers for the purpose of seeking out individuals who are subject to a warrant for any offence punishable by imprisonment for five years or more.

The government was somewhat sensitive to our position on this. It made one step toward improvement, but to our minds did not go far enough. It wanted to have this information passed on to a law enforcement officer, but this was still a problem for us because it was up to the RCMP to determine whether or not to refer. It is one and the same thing whether the RCMP or a law enforcement officer makes the arrest based on information provided by the RCMP. In our opinion, it comes down to the same thing. As a result, the privacy of airline passengers is being violated, and this is of major concern to us.

As for information sharing, the other aspect that concerned us was the fact that this information was being retained. We were not reassured with respect to the relevance of retaining this information for the length of time laid out in the bill. We tried to speed up the process, to have this information destroyed sooner. Unfortunately, every motion that we moved to do so was defeated in committee.

I would like to quote from parts of the press release issued by the privacy commissioner, Mr. Radwanski. He is very concerned. Not much has changed since his press release. Since I have two minutes left, I will quote him. He believes there is:

—only minimal and unsatisfactory change, in the replacement legislation, Bill C-17.

The commissioner also said that:

The provision in question, section 4.82 of both bills, would give the RCMP and CSIS unrestricted access to the personal information held by airlines about all Canadian air travellers on domestic as well as international flights.

That is what I explained earlier. We agree with the position of the privacy commissioner. He is worried, and I quote him:

that the RCMP would also be expressly empowered to use this information to seek out persons wanted on warrants for Criminal Code offences that have nothing to do with terrorism, transportation security or national security.

Finally, he says that the changes proposed are an insult to the intelligence of Canadians.

The changes that have been made in this provision in the new bill do nothing to address the fundamental issues of principle that are at stake.

In conclusion, we are nevertheless proud to have won on the whole issue of military zones, which are almost completely erased from the new bill. Unfortunately, we believe that the government has not done enough on the issue of interim orders issued by ministers and protecting the privacy of all travellers. In fact, changes were made that do not go nearly far enough to protect the privacy of travellers.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-17, the public safety act, which has gone through a number of morphs over the course of a couple of years. Surprisingly enough even after 9/11 a couple of years ago, we have survived without the bill being in place. Canadians and those participating in that experience on that day did a fantastic job. They were not blocked in any way, shape or form by individuals or different government departments or different organizations. I have yet to hear anyone who objected to what happened. People did not raise concerns over having their rights infringed upon. However, that has not been the case with this bill.

I am sure the member who chaired the committee on Bill C-17 will reflect that the witnesses we heard from the government side, the department side and the police associations felt it was quite okay to infringe on the privacy and civil liberties of Canadians. Pretty much every other person who appeared, all very knowledgeable, respected people in their fields, Ken Rubin, former minister of the crown Warren Allmand, Clayton Ruby, representatives of different civil liberties organizations, representatives of bar associations from Quebec, B.C. and throughout the country, strongly voiced their concerns. This was not some whimsical idea that this was not a worry. They voiced their concerns about the infringements on the basic civil liberties and privacy rights of Canadians.

Those people did not do it whimsically. They did not say they did not agree with putting in place ways of addressing terrorism but there was a general feeling that what is in place already will do the job. Within the bill there are numerous other departments that come into question. There are issues related to the National Energy Board, the Canada Shipping Act, the Food and Drugs Act, biological and toxic weapons, Navigable Waters Protection Act. There are a number of different departments that are tied into it and no one objected, saying in the event of terrorism we have to be able to respond. No one objected to that.

The strongest objections were in the area of protection of the rights of ordinary Canadians. We are not talking about protecting the rights of criminals and terrorists. We talked about Canadians on the street having the basic right of not having a police intervention with them for something as simple as walking down the street or boarding a plane, simply because they are boarding a plane. It was an issue of privacy and civil liberties.

I want to read a couple of comments to give some background as to why there was such concern. Privacy Commissioner George Radwanski said:

It is in fact, of the various concerns you have heard and will hear as a committee, probably the easiest to fix, because it has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on either transportation security or national security against terrorism, which of course are the objects of this bill.

That is very important because numerous times what we heard appeared not to be an issue related to national security or the object of the bill which was transportation security.

And yet, it is also a concern that is crucially important because of the precedents the provision in question would set and the doors it would open, which are of grave concern from a privacy point of view.

I want to emphasize this because of the attitude that if we have nothing to hide, we should not worry about it.

I want to emphasize, in addressing this issue, as I emphasized in my annual report, which was made public last week, that since September 11, I have not once objected to a single actual anti-terrorism measure.

Nor has anybody else in this country.

I regard it as of course unthinkable that, as Privacy Commissioner, I would for a moment seek to stand in the way of any measures that are genuinely and legitimately necessary to protect Canadians against terrorism. I have not done so and I would not do so.

That is the Privacy Commissioner. I emphasize that I believe that is the position of each and every one of us in Canada.

But the provision in question, as I say, is not related to anti-terrorism or transportation security. Rather it is something slipped into this bill that really is quite unrelated to its purposes. What I am referring to are the aspects of proposed under section 4.82 of the bill, and specifically proposed subsection 4.82(11), which empowers RCMP officers examining passenger data, even on flights entirely within Canada, to notify local authorities to take appropriate steps to effect an arrest if they happen to identify anyone who is wanted on a warrant for any of a wide number of Criminal Code offences completely unrelated to either terrorism or transportation security.

The bill, which the government flaunted and I believe preyed upon the fear people had after 9/11, is not being used to address transportation security or anti-terrorism. It somehow wants police forces and other agencies throughout the country to use it for reasons other than what the government says was its mandate in the bill. That is unconscionable.

Mr. Radwanski went on to say:

My difficulty with this, let me stress, has nothing to do with trying to protect criminals, and in fact sorting out this provision would in no way protect criminals. The difficulty, rather, is that it opens the door for the first time in a completely inappropriate, and in this instance unnecessary, way to mandatory self-identification to the state, to the police, for general law enforcement purposes.

When I came to the House I never thought there would ever be an issue in Canada of the police coming up to me and saying “I want to see your identification. Do you have a reason for being here?” I think each and every one of us believes we have the right to be somewhere and that we do not have to answer as to why we are there. If we have not committed a criminal act we should not have to indicate that to anyone.

As a result of this bill and as a result of some of the other measures that have been put in place in Canada, I felt that there was an infringement on my privacy and my rights for no good reason. It scared me. At one point I heard from the Muslim Lawyers Association. I tried to put myself in the position of someone of Muslim ancestry at a time when we were dealing with the whole issue of 9/11, and I felt even more insecure and even more infringed upon as a Canadian. As a white Canadian one would not be targeted the way some other racial groups are.

My riding has a large aboriginal population. Over the years I have seen aboriginal people in Canada targeted with jokes and comments. We know historically that things have happened to different groups of people, but we all need to be honest. It does not usually happen to the white population, and that is because most of us are the white population. The worst case scenarios may never happen to us. As a result we lose sight of the fact that those groups to whom the worst case scenarios will happen have every right and reason to have even more concerns about the bill than we have.

I cannot believe I only have one minute left to speak to this issue. It is a very important issue relating to the privacy rights and civil liberties of Canadians. The Privacy Commissioner listed one real concern and I have given it here. Those same types of comments came from other people who were here representing the lawyers groups and the bar associations. We could all make comments about lawyers in general, but I think we all truly believe in our hearts that they represent the best interests of Canadians within the judicial system. No one was saying that they were going to protect criminals over the rights of others. That is not it. It is that we want to protect all people in Canada from an infringement upon their privacy and their civil liberties.

There is no need for a number of sections of the bill. I quite frankly do not believe the bill has to be in place. I recognize that the government wanted to make some changes which is fine, but on issues related to privacy and civil liberties, they are not acceptable. For that reason alone the bill should not be accepted unless there are further safeguards put in place to protect the civil liberties and privacy of Canadians.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-17. There has been a lot of worthwhile debate on the subject already.

I will begin by reiterating what the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough said in an earlier debate on this matter:

Obviously the obligation on any government is to govern with balance and integrity to ensure that people's interests are being protected, and certainly the obligation is to ensure that there is a degree of scrutiny over its actions. My greatest concern, and I think it is the concern of many who have already spoken, is that the bill backs away from that fundamental principle, that tenet of justice that says there has to be accountability, that there have to be consequences for actions taken.

I have listened to part of the debate today and those words, albeit slightly changed, have been repeated by just about every member who has spoken to the bill. The member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough went on to say:

I would suggest that this type of legislation can be a convenient tool for government to concentrate more power, more state control, and that state control can impact very negatively on civil rights or liberties. In effect, this type of decision taken could last a year. It is fair to say that this type of power could be described as power for the sake of power in many instances. I think that Canadians feel more cynical and even apathetic to the point of not participating in the democratic process when they see this type of power being exercised.

The comments of the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, the member for Churchill and other members who spoke to the bill indicate that people are extremely concerned and worried that too much power is being put into government hands with too little accountability. Surely as defenders of the democratic process, as representatives of Canadians, it is our job to make sure there is some accountability for possible government excess in any type of legislation that is passed.

The bill touches on 20 different government departments. It amends over 20 acts. This subject, probably more than any other subject that could be raised in the House, is an issue of trust by the citizens of Canada of the Government of Canada. What we see sorely lacking here is any degree or level of trust on behalf of the citizenry.

The bill will affect many acts. Among them is the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention Implementation Act which is there in order to enhance public safety. Part I of the bill is there supposedly to enhance public safety. Part 1 amends the Aeronautics Act. Part 2 amends the screening point in the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority Act and will include emergency directions made under the Aeronautics Act. It also permits the authority to enter into agreements with operators of designated aerodromes respecting the sharing of policing costs.

We have opened up the bill and that is just one part of it. Almost every single act that is being affected here could be a stand-alone piece of legislation.

This is the third resurrection of the bill. It is way too complex and way too confusing to be rammed through the House of Commons. We will affect the Criminal Code, Citizenship and Immigration Act, Department of Health, Explosives Act, Export and Import Permits Act, Food and Drugs Act, and Hazardous Products Act. There is little that we deal with as a government that will not be affected. Anything that remotely affects Canadians is covered under this particular omnibus bill.

The list goes on: Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, Marine Transportation Security Act, National Defence Act, National Emergency Act, Navigable Waters Protection Act, and Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act. I wonder about these supposed security zones and these supposed methods to limit possible terrorist activity in money laundering. Will these also affect the government? Will they affect everyone in Canada? Are we targeting a certain group? Will we use excessive and perhaps abusive powers on ordinary citizens who quite frankly do not need big brother staring over their shoulder? Is this a proposed act that could possibly be open for abuse?

Most people would say that most acts could be open for abuse, but the more complicated and broad, and far-reaching the proposed act is, the more potential there is to be open to abuse.

Part 17 particularly bothers me. It would amend the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act to permit the collection and the use of personal information for reasons of national security. What personal information are we talking about here? We can get that personal information now. I am not a lawyer, but if a police force wants personal information it can get a permit from a judge to wiretap, to eavesdrop, to take pictures, or to even invade the privacy of a person's home to look for illegal or illicit materials.

Everything that is asked for in the bill to my knowledge is already out there, with a system of checks and balances in place to ensure that this power would not be abused. The difficulty with Bill C-17 is that I do not see that same set of checks and balances in place to ensure that the civil liberties of Canadians would be protected. I do not see assurances that the privacy rights that we all take for granted would be protected, that when we get on a bus or an airplane someone is not going to be following our VISA card purchases for that ticket, and that what type of a meal we ordered would not be known. This is incidental information that I suppose may be important to certain law enforcement agencies for certain reasons.

However, all that information can already be obtained. The government can go to a judge and present its case, get a search warrant or a permit to eavesdrop, to tap a person's telephone, and try to find out if a person is carrying out an illegal activity. I have little faith that the government of the day is responsible enough to have the type of wide ranging powers that it is asking for under this bill.

Without trying to sound like I am fearmongering, I do not trust the government to use it judiciously or wisely. It is a serious step and precedent in the wrong direction.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill C-17. As my colleagues who have spoken previously to this bill have made very clear in their comments, this is an omnibus bill that is divided into 19 separate parts, cuts across at least 20 areas of departmental responsibility and amends close to two dozen pieces of legislation in every domain from transportation, including aviation, airport security and shipping, to industry, energy matters and public health.

There are aspects of the omnibus bill that we find supportable. We think there are reasonable kinds of protections and precautions that are being put in place to provide increased security to Canadians. However, we also find that on balance this is a piece of legislation that we simply cannot support. Therefore, we will be voting against this legislation.

There are elements of the legislation that we support, like the anti-terrorist money laundering provision and the new criminal offences for bomb threats and hoaxes. This cannot be tolerated and we support the provisions to provide for stronger sanctions. We agree with the implementation of international conventions on biological weapons, small arms and explosives trafficking. We would like to see the government stand tall and firm to push ahead on the meaningful disarmament of everything from small arms to landmines.

We are worried about the fact that the government seems increasingly willing to turn its back on important courageous and pioneering work that has been carried out by government departments with great results and real success, and instead capitulate to the agenda of our neighbours to the south, namely the Bush agenda.

We want to applaud the government's willingness to specifically address the need to be even more proactive in these measures. We have no hesitation about making clear our support for those measures. However, in our view the interim order provisions that are contained in this bill, which are complex and voluminous, are not supportable. They go far beyond what is required for national security or what is reasonable. Together with the so-called new military security zones they may have potentially the opposite effect from the supposed stated intention of this legislation, which is to provide increased security for Canadians in a turbulent and troubled world.

They absolutely cross the line of what is permissible in a democratic society. It is a line that we should never be willing to cross to give the government and individual ministers astounding amounts of arbitrary power. There is a theoretical concern about the possibility of those excessive powers being used to suppress the fundamental rights of citizens with little or no accountability for their actions. Unfortunately, we have already begun to see, from similar pieces of legislation, similar draconian measures put into practice by the government, and precisely that kind of arbitrariness and unaccountability that this particular legislation arouses.

This abandonment of the central notion of security being about the safeguarding of important civil liberties and human rights is what is most frightening. It is not just this particular piece of legislation, but the government's reaction in general to the call, the pressure, and the hysteria that flows across the border about the need to take increased security measures.

Whatever happened to the government's understanding? Because there was an understanding that was lauded and applauded by this corner of the House that security had to be understood in terms of genuine human security. That does not begin with the trampling of civil rights and liberties, but with taking extraordinary caution and appropriate measures to safeguard and protect those rights.

This is not a theoretical concern. The basis for the concern has been reinforced by two informative and instructive meetings held in my office in the last 24 hours. Yesterday I had a meeting with a member of the Canadian Jewish community who was speaking out strongly and expressing his concerns about the rash of anti-Semitism that had been unleashed in this country post-September 11.

Earlier this morning I had the opportunity, during the budget implementation debate, to express concern about the mouthing of concern that we heard from members on the government side regarding the already evident outbreak of anti-Muslim sentiment and anti-Semitism directed at Jewish Canadians. The government refused to back up those expressions of concern with the appropriate resources needed to strengthen the safeguards and to provide the protections for Canadians wherever this kind of racial hatred and religious bigotry reared its head.

In fact, we have had a rash of so-called security legislation from the government that in effect institutionalized what has become the trampling of rights of the very people, the victims of discrimination, racial profiling, hatred and bigotry, who most need the protection. In fact, they are the ones first in line to be discriminated against. Here we go again with Bill C-17. It is a piece of legislation that simply repeats that misguided response to the so-called security measures.

The second meeting that I found extremely informative and powerful took place in my office this morning with representatives, volunteers, and grassroots activists from the Canadian Arab community. They are here on Parliament Hill today to express their concern about the government's response to September 11. They are pleading for members of the government to understand.

That is why this legislation is so important. They are pleading for the government to understand that the manner in which the government has responded to September 11 has literally left a great many Canadians reeling, including members of the Arab and Muslim community. I quote directly from the appeal that was made by those Canadian Arab members with whom I met this morning.

September 11 and its aftermath have left Arab and Muslim Canadians reeling with sentiments of anxiety, fear, alienation, marginalization, betrayal, and disillusionment. There have been many causes for this: Key among them is what would, by Canadian standards, easily qualify as an excessive, overzealous security agenda.

This is one such piece of legislation that reflects that excessive, overzealous security agenda--

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join with my colleagues in the New Democratic Party today to register our strongest possible objections to Bill C-17.

The House will have heard from a number of my colleagues, including our transportation critic, the member for Churchill, who has taken the lead for our caucus on the bill and has put on the record our general and overwhelming concerns with respect to the legislation.

Again this morning the House heard that we were so concerned about the bill that we would like to see the government pull it and begin again. This is the third attempt at an anti-terrorism security legislative proposal. Three times the government has come forward with a proposition that is untenable. Three times the government has come forward with a bill that intrudes incredibly into the lives of individuals' daily living situations, which is a basic infringement on the right of privacy. Three times the government has been told that it is wrong, that it is untenable, that it is unacceptable, that it is not part of the Canadian tradition and that it is not in keeping with our approach to balancing security concerns with individual rights and freedoms.

Three times the government has come back with unacceptable legislation. We say that three times and the government is out. The bill should be rejected and taken off the agenda, and the government should start again.

If we have not said it loudly and clearly enough today in debate, let us go back to some of the experts who have commented on the legislation. I would like to refer to Ken Rubin who, as members will know, is an expert in the areas of freedom of information, privacy rights and in balancing the powers of government in terms of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. On February 3, in an article that appeared in the Montreal Gazette , Ken Rubin said the following:

The federal government's third try at a Public Safety Act is the most intrusive attack on Canadians' privacy put before Parliament since the War Measures Act.

Those are strong words but they are strong words backed up by facts. Those are strong words that must be taken into account by the government. Surely the government is as concerned as other Canadians with the need to provide balance and perspective, and to ensure that our age long tradition of upholding the rights and freedoms of Canadians is carried on. Surely the government is concerned that the legacy it leaves for future generations is one of balance. Yes, we need to protect Canadians in the face of terrorist threats and attacks, but at the same time we need to recognize that we have an obligation to protect the privacy of Canadians and the rights and freedoms for which we have fought long and hard.

I urge the government today to take heed of those words and to listen more to what Ken Rubin has to say. In that same article he said:

Bill C-17--now in second reading before a special parliamentary committee--has been criticized for its proposal to create an airline passenger data base with more than one intended purpose.

Instead of officials just checking airline manifests for suspicious passengers who fit the profile of terrorists, the bill's drafters want to do more. They would allow CSIS, Canada's intelligence agency, and the RCMP to use the airline information collected to combat terrorism, to catch criminals with outstanding offences carrying a jail penalty of five years or more.

The author of this article goes on to call upon Parliament to put things in perspective and to realize that its fundamental role and responsibility is the protection of that balance and to ensure that government legislation does not cross the line and pervade people's lives to the point where fundamental rights and freedoms are taken away.

The privacy commissioner expressed those same sentiments when he appeared before the committee on February 10. He had some very important words for the government. We had hoped the Liberal members of the committee had heard those words and had taken them into account and would have brought forward a recommendation today whereby this bill would either be fundamentally changed to reflect those concerns or a recommendation that it be scrapped and that the government start again.

This is what Mr. Radwanski had to say on February 10. He said:

As I said in my annual report, recently tabled, in Canada today the fundamental human right of privacy is under unprecedented assault. A series of government initiatives, either under way or being contemplated, threatens to cut the heart out of privacy as we know it. We are at risk of losing privacy rights we have long taken for granted. These government initiatives grew out of a call for increased security after September 11, and anti-terrorism is their purported rationale.

Yes, we are here today to deal with an appropriate legislative response in the face of the terrorist attacks and, in particular, in the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attack. We are all interested in doing that.

We also know that we have a responsibility to ensure that the legislation that is passed today endures over time and protects Canadians from an unfair intrusion into their daily lives. We have had some time since September 11 to examine Bill C-17 in greater depth and with cooler heads to see what lasting impact it could have on Canadian society.

We also have had time to see how the added security powers exercised by the government since September 11 have impacted in practice on Canadian society and to hear from many groups that have particular expertise in this area.

As with the bills preceding Bill C-17, we have to acknowledge that the legislation before us today goes beyond simply responding in a rational, reasonable way to the terrorist attacks of September 11. It crosses the line and enters into that area where fundamental freedoms are at risk.

We say to the government today that the bill goes too far. The major concern we have with it is its impact on our right to privacy and our right to be treated equally before the law, irrespective of race, religion or where our families originated.

We also have the issues of parliamentary oversight and accountability, the cornerstones of our democratic system of government.

Let me go back and elaborate a bit more on the issue Ken Rubin touched on, the question of airline security and the sharing of passenger information.

The privacy commissioner was very explicit in his comments before the parliamentary committee that it was not the anti-terrorist aspect of the information sharing that was of concern. He showed us that the bill went beyond that, that it would intrude into our traditional protection of privacy and limitations on the state's right to access our personal information. The commissioner warned us about creating the power for officials to go on fishing expeditions for Canadians who may show up in law enforcement databanks but who have nothing to do with security or terrorism.

If we are going to change our fundamental approach to law enforcement we should be having a debate that includes our rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, rather than going through the back door of an omnibus bill.

There is much more to be said but I am sure my colleagues will continue to speak to this very important issue. I would suggest that the government acknowledge the importance of drastically altering the bill. I would suggest that it look at some of the 50 amendments proposed by the New Democratic Party at the committee and, if not, to agree to withdraw the bill and start again in the interests of balancing security with the need to uphold rights and freedoms of Canadians.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise to participate in the debate on Bill C-17, recognizing, as my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre pointed out, that this is the government's third attempt to push legislation through the House that would pose a profound threat to some of the most basic civil liberties and the privacy of Canadians.

We know that the previous legislation introduced in November 2001 was Bill C-42. That bill was met with a huge amount of opposition, including from New Democrats. The government tried again in the spring of 2002 with Bill C-55.

Each time the government has introduced and reintroduced the legislation, it has taken a little off the edges perhaps, reduced the scope of the legislation and changed the time limit a bit, but it has not recognized the concerns of Canadians that the bill is an assault on some of the most basic and fundamental rights and freedoms and that privacy rights are at the heart of that concern.

I want to pay tribute to my colleague from Churchill, the federal New Democrat transport critic, who has done such an effective job, both in the committee and across the country, in helping to make Canadians more aware of what the dangers are of this bill.

It is not just this legislation. I think we have to look at this legislation in the context of a broader package of bills that the government has brought forward in the aftermath of September 11. Prime among those bills was Bill C-36, the so-called anti-terrorism legislation, which was far in excess of what was needed to respond to the genuine concerns in terms of fighting against terrorism.

Clearly that was a profoundly and fundamentally flawed bill that introduced unprecedented new powers. This bill, Bill C-17, is in much the same light.

The committee that studied Bill C-17 heard extensive evidence from a range of witnesses from across Canada. My colleagues who spoke earlier in the debate highlighted some of the points that were made. I would note for example the very compelling and eloquent evidence of the representatives of the Coalition of Muslim Organizations of Canada who pointed out that they were already concerned that members of their community were being targeted by law enforcement officers and others, and by border control officers both in Canada and in the United States, in the aftermath of September 11.

Certainly I, as a member of Parliament for Burnaby—Douglas, have heard from a number of constituents who were born in the Middle East, perhaps in Syria, in Iraq, in Iran or in other countries, who travelled to Canada, perhaps in some cases as young people, as children, and yet who have been treated in the most degrading and humiliating manner, being subjected to fingerprinting, photographing, treated basically as criminals. These people's only offence was that they happened to have been born in one of those countries.

That kind of racial profiling is totally unacceptable and yet Bill C-17 would open up the possibility for that to be expanded on a wide scale. That has been pointed out, as I said, by the Coalition of Muslim Organizations, both in its evidence to the committee and in the brief it submitted to the committee. Its brief particularly noted that the act would give sweeping discretion and authority to the Minister of Transport and to the heads of CSIS and the RCMP for significant abuses of power.

One of the greatest dangers of the bill is that there is a total lack of any effective parliamentary oversight. If we as parliamentarians were to vote for the legislation, we would be giving carte blanche to the Minister of Transport and to the heads of CSIS and the RCMP to exercise these very sweeping new powers.

The people from the Arab Canadian community, the Muslim community in particular who already have been targeted post-September 11, have rightly raised grave concerns about the impact this sweeping discretion in the bill would have. It would allow law enforcement agencies to basically go on fishing expeditions and violate the privacy of Canadians.

Parliament has agreed to the appointment of a privacy commissioner whose responsibility will be to report back to Parliament when there are attacks on the privacy rights of Canadians.

Privacy Commissioner George Radwanski appeared before the Standing Committee on Transport just a couple of months ago and said that the bill was a very dangerous piece of legislation. He put it in the context of other legislation and other powers that had already been passed. He noted for example the database of Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, what he called its big brother passenger database.

George Radwanski talked about the bill now before the House. He said:

Bill C-17, the Public Safety Act, will introduce a requirement that we, in effect, identify ourselves to the police when we travel. What I'm referring to here is the fact that when you board a flight these days, even a domestic flight, you have to show photo ID to the airline to confirm your identity.

The bill would make all passenger information available to CSIS and the RCMP, and it is not just about fighting terrorism. The legislation explicitly makes it clear that it goes far beyond that. It permits the RCMP to basically scan passenger information to seek a whole range of information that has nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.

What this amounts to in effect, as Radwanski points out, is self-identification to the police by law-abiding Canadian citizens. As he asked, why not when we took train, a bus, rent a car or checked into a hotel? Once this dangerous principle is accepted, the police in effect are being given powers that I believe are both unconstitutional and violate squarely the provisions of the Charter of Rights.

One of the most respected constitutional lawyers in Canada, Clayton Ruby, appeared before the committee studying Bill C-17 and made that very point. He made the point that the bill was totally lacking in any meaningful safeguards. He said:

So you've taken a narrow kernel of constitutionality...and it may or may not be wise...Wisdom is not my concern here, but constitutionality is. The idea that you can take that information and pass it on, without time limits, without restraints, for general law enforcement purposes...

That is not terrorism but general law enforcement purposes. He went on to say:

--is simply unheard of in this country. We have never done it. Perhaps more importantly, free countries just generally do not do it. Democracies generally do not do this.

Yet, the Liberal government, first in Bill C-42, then in Bill C-55 and now in Bill C-17 is insisting that it take on those sweeping and dangerous new powers.

My colleague for Winnipeg North Centre made reference to Ken Rubin and his evidence before the committee. Certainly Ken Rubin is one of the most knowledgeable when it comes to issues of protection of privacy and respect for the fundamental human rights and civil liberties of Canadians.

Another group that has been outspoken and has taken a leadership role on the issue is a group from my own province, the province of British Columbia, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, one of the most active civil liberties groups in Canada.

The B.C. Civil Liberties Association as well appeared before the standing committee on Bill C-17. The association said that it was a draconian bill which was an attack on a free and democratic society. It pointed out that the bill went far beyond what was actually required to deal with the actual threat of terrorism. It said that much of what needed to be done did not need new legislation at all. In fact under the existing Emergencies Act, there are ample powers to respond to the kinds of concerns that have been raised.

There is always this tension between, on the one hand, the fundamental rights of Canadians as set out in the Charter of Rights and in a body of law and, on the other hand, this desire in the name of fighting terrorism to give sweeping new powers to the police. We as New Democrats argue that the government has failed terribly to achieve the correct balance.

I also want to note another provision of Bill C-17 and that is with respect to exclusion zones. There would be an order in council that would apply to an unknown area. We do not know exactly what that area would be, around Halifax, Esquimalt and Nanoose Bay. It could be used in other parts of the country as well, and we still do not know exactly what powers will be given with respect to these controlled access military zones of Bill C-55.

When it comes to Nanoose Bay, a growing number of British Columbians are saying that they do not want American nuclear powered submarines or American submarines that possibly carry nuclear weapons, in their waters. Yet the bill gives new powers to the government to provide for exclusion zones in these areas as well.

This legislation, Bill C-17, should be scrapped. The government should go back to the drawing board and recognize that we protect and value civil liberties in this country. We do not attack civil liberties and privacy as Bill C-17 does.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The question is on Motion No. 6. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

All those opposed will please say nay.