Debates of May 27th, 2003

Public Service Modernization Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

The vote stands deferred until the end of government orders on Wednesday, May 28.

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thought we were waiting for members to be called and then I heard you make a reference to a date. I was not clear as to, first, what it was you had said or, second, the reasoning that led you to say it. I wonder if you might elaborate.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In the instance before the House, either the chief government whip or the official opposition chief whip are empowered to defer the vote. In this case the chief whip for the official opposition has requested that the vote be deferred until the end of government orders tomorrow, Wednesday, May 28, and that is where we are at presently.

Public Safety Act, 2002

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, for the Minister of Transport]

moved that 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, be read the third time and passed.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak in the House today to Bill C-17, the public safety act.

As members of the House who have followed the debates on Bill C-17, including the consultations in committee, will be aware, Bill C-17 is a necessary tool to improve the safety and security of Canadians, of our neighbours and of global air travel.

While I will be addressing my remarks primarily to one or two clauses of Bill C-17, those clauses that relate directly to the role, mandate and powers of the RCMP and of CSIS, I am aware that some of my colleagues will be speaking to Bill C-17 and will be addressing their remarks to the much broader aspect of Bill C-17, the public safety act.

I would like to look specifically at how the bill would help to improve the government's capacity to identify potential terrorists and other threats to transportation security in order to prevent deadly attacks here, at home or abroad.

At the same time, once Bill C-17 becomes law, and I hope it will receive the consent of the House and in the other House, it will give our law enforcement and security agencies an effective and timely tool to improve transportation security and the safety of all Canadians.

How will Bill C-17 do this? I believe the bill, if passed, will protect Canadian security within a framework of respect for privacy rights. I am aware that privacy rights have been a concern throughout the evolution of the bill but I am convinced that the Government of Canada has taken the necessary steps to address such concerns.

The concerns of the privacy commissioner and representatives of various interest groups and community groups within Canada were brought forward to the legislative committee that dealt with the bill upon direction from the House. A lot of their concerns with respect to clause 4.82 were addressed.

What would clause 4.82 do? Clause 4.82 amend the Aeronautics Act to require airlines, upon request, to provide a small core group of specially designated RCMP and CSIS officers with access to air passenger information for very restricted purposes. These purposes are limited to transportation security, the air carrier protective program and counterterrorism.

The specially designated officers would work with an automated system that will alert them when there is a possible match between an individual passenger record and an RCMP or CSIS record. Once this has occurred, the matched information will be verified by the designated officer.

These designated officers in turn, under clause 4.82, would be authorized to disclose passenger information to a third party only for very restricted purposes.

What are these purposes, members may very well ask, and rightfully so? In practical terms, CSIS needs to identify known and suspected terrorists before they board a plane, so a designated CSIS officer would be able to disclose the information to another CSIS employee for the investigation of a threat to the security of Canada.

Similarly, the RCMP needs to know if there may be potentially dangerous passengers on flights if they are to deliver an effective air carrier protective program. As a result, clause 4.82 would allow a designated officer to disclose information to the aircraft protective officers to assist them with their duties.

I will remind members what an aircraft protective officer is. Under previous legislation the government now allows the RCMP to have officers in civilian clothes who will travel on airlines undisclosed to regular passengers. They are protective officers and their job is to ensure the protection of passengers on airlines and of air transportation safety in general.

As a general public safety provision, if a designated RCMP officer in the course of reviewing this data for the purposes of transportation security, comes across the name of someone wanted on a warrant for a serious offence listed in the regulations for section 4.82 then he or she could also provide the appropriate police agency with this information to help lead to an arrest.

I would like to underline for my colleagues and for Canadians who are watching this debate that the types of offences we are referring to here are: terrorism offences, transportation security offences, serious violent offences, serious drug offences, and organized crime offences. They are offences punishable by a prison term of five years or more.

It is important that I highlight that because in the original proposed legislation the list of offences was indeed unacceptable. There were offences for municipal issues. There were outmoded, outdated criminal offences, minor crimes, et cetera. Many interested groups and many of my colleagues brought to the government's attention the inconsistency of having this whole list of criminal offences that had absolutely nothing to do with public transportation, nothing to do with security threats to our country, and nothing to do with serious violent offences, serious drug offences, and organized crime offences. The government took note and brought in appropriate amendments to the list of offences that would be covered under section 4.82.

The bill does not allow information sharing on individuals wanted on warrants for minor or possibly outdated offences. For example, it would not allow information to be shared on someone wanted for municipal corruption or for taking possession of drift timber. Those are just two examples of some of the original offences which were included on the list and have now been deleted because the government listened to the representations and the concerns raised by members of the House, interested community organizations, and other interested parties in the wider community.

The bill would allow the RCMP to notify local police in cases where a data match identifies a dangerous wanted criminal or terrorist so individuals could be apprehended before they harm someone else. The public would not expect any less from the RCMP. I would also like to stress that any passenger information that is collected by the RCMP or by CSIS under section 4.82 must be destroyed within seven days after it is provided by the air carrier unless that information is required for transportation or national security purposes.

Mr. Speaker, the legislative committee which you chaired on Bill C-17 regarded seven days as a reasonable length of time. Seven days would provide the RCMP and CSIS with the minimum amount of time they need to analyze passenger information access before planes actually depart. As for the information that is retained beyond the seven day period, section 4.82 would require the RCMP or CSIS to each conduct an annual review of information retained by designated officers. If continued retention were no longer reasonably required for transportation or national security purposes, it would have to be destroyed.

To ensure accountability and transparency the bill requires written records to be kept to justify retention and disclosure of any passenger information. This would enable review agencies, governing agencies, and civilian oversight agencies like the Security Intelligence Review Committee, the inspector general for CSIS or privacy commissioner, to readily examine records to determine compliance with the law.

I would like to emphasize that the government listened to several recommendations made to the legislative committee on Bill C-17. As a result of the government listening to these recommendations, Bill C-17 has been improved to include additional privacy safeguards. Based upon recommendations from committee members the government brought in a motion to amend section 4.82 in order to restrict urgent disclosures to only those persons who are in a position to take measures to respond and who need the information in order to do so.

Acting on a Canadian Bar Association recommendation the government brought in another motion to ensure that the destruction test used at the annual review is the same as the one required within seven days. That test would require the destruction of passenger information unless reasonably required for transportation or national security purposes. In the original manifestation of Bill C-17, that test for information that was retained past the seven day delay was not the same test. As a result of the Canadian Bar Association's recommendation the government has amended the bill in order to ensure that the same test is used. That test stipulates that the information would only be required for transportation or national security purposes.

In closing, the proposed data sharing scheme would provide a balanced approach that would achieve the goal of public safety while maintaining the privacy rights of individuals. Canadians want safe air travel and they want protection from terrorism. Canadians are entitled to expect that information collected under a scheme such as this one would be used effectively for their safety while at the same time respecting their privacy.

I am convinced that the government has taken into account concerns expressed about proposals in the previous legislation. The government has listened to others and believes that we have struck the right balance between public safety and respect for the privacy of individuals.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe you will find unanimous consent that, notwithstanding the extension of government orders because of the recorded divisions after question period, government orders today end at 5:30 p.m. in order to proceed to private members' business at the normal time.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Lynne Yelich, Canadian Alliance, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to participate in the third reading debate 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 known as the public safety act.

Our party will be reluctantly supporting Bill C-17 for two reasons. First, the events of September 11, 2001, have made legislation like Bill C-17 necessary. The United States, western Europe and most, if not all, of our major allies have adopted similar legislation as modern democracies attempt to deal with the terrorist threat from faceless cowards. To the extent that this type of legislation is necessary, I will support it.

Second, even as I support it, I must call on the government to adopt a higher standard both in the quality of legislation that it puts forward and in its willingness to be accountable to Parliament. In fact, it could be said that Bill C-17 and its predecessors are symptoms of what is wrong with the way Liberals govern our country.

If the true measure of a man is what he does rather than what he says, then the measure of a country must be in part its reaction to times of trial and stress. In the United States, 10 days after the September 11 attack, Senator Fritz Hollings was on his feet to introduce America's response, S.1447, a bill to improve aviation security, and for other purposes. With lightning speed, and despite an anthrax scare on Capitol Hill, both the house of congress and the senate quickly passed the legislation and President Bush signed it on November 19, 2001.

Members should think about this. Capitol Hill was under fire from all sides, yet dialogue happened. Politicians of different parties built a consensus on how a superpower would respond to a terrorist threat on its own soil and make its citizens feel safe.

In 1968, in his book Toward a Psychology of Being , Abraham Maslow identified his famous hierarchy of needs: physiological, safety, love, esteem and self actualization. The second of these is safety, otherwise known as security needs, and it is one of the few that the state can provide in a concrete way. United States governments of all political stripes have long understood that their first duty is to protect the safety security of their citizens and so when September 11 happened, Capitol Hill acted with a speed that was nearly dizzying.

A bill was proposed and amended. The house of representatives and the senate concurred and the President signed his approval. The whole process lasted a mere 10 weeks. During that same 10 weeks the Liberal government slept. In fact, it was a full three days after President Bush signed the U.S. law that the Liberal government tabled the first version of the public safety act, then called Bill C-42, on November 22.

Bill C-42 immediately drew fire from all sides. However, rather than seeking to build the kind of consensus that would allow a nation to respond quickly to a new threat, the government hid. The bill never went to any committee and was withdrawn April 24, 2002. Then, five days later, the Liberal government introduced Bill C-42's replacement, Bill C-55.

I have long believed that people in government should learn from their mistakes. One of Bill C-42's problems had been its complexity. It would have amended or introduced legislation affecting 10 federal departments. It was so complex that the portion giving airlines the legal authority to share reservations information with foreign governments had to be hived off into another bill, Bill C-44, so that some of the more useful clauses could get quick passage.

Bill C-55 showed that the Liberal government had learned little. It would have amended or introduced 19 federal statutes affecting some nine federal departments. In fact, Bill C-55 was so complex that a special committee was struck on May 9, 2002, solely for the purpose of studying it. That committee never met. Bill C-55 died on the Order Paper on September 16, 2002, when Parliament prorogued.

Given the speed with which the U.S. passed its legislation and given that most, if not all, of our major allies had similar legislation, one would think that passing Bill C-55 would have been a priority.

Certainly if we listen to the Minister of Transport he will tell us that Bill C-26, the transportation amendment act, is high priority. In fact, it is so high priority that he does not want the transport committee to travel when it studies that bill. The transportation amendment act is high priority, but on September 16, 2002 when Parliament prorogued, the public safety act was not.

Let me refer back to Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Safety is number two. Transport is not on the list, but transport rather than safety is a higher priority for the government.

The fact that Bill C-55 died on the Order Paper on September 16, 2002, almost a year to the day of the crises that spawned its creation, one gets a clear sense that while America was implementing tough new legislation to make its skies safer, Canada's Liberal government not only did not know what it was doing, but it had no idea of where to start.

In fact, the current legislation, Bill C-17, was not tabled in the House until some six weeks later, on October 31, 2002, fully 13 months after the September 11 attacks, and nearly 11 months after President Bush signed America's aviation and transportation security act into legislation as public law 107-71.

It is now May 27, 2003 and this bill is at third reading. Two things become evident very quickly. The first is that the government is under increasing pressure to be seen to be doing something, or in some case to be acting. The other is that it is terrified of real consultation and only accepts amendments when it has no other choice.

We see an example of the pressure that the government faced in the way it handled the sharing of airline passenger reservations systems information with various government agencies.

We are aware that part 1 of Bill C-17 introduces new clauses into the Aeronautics Act allowing the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the persons they designate, to require certain passenger information from air carriers and operators of aviation reservation systems, to be used and disclosed for transportation security purposes; national security investigations relating to terrorism; situations of immediate threat to the life or safety of a person; the enforcement of arrest warrants for offences punishable by five years or more of imprisonment and that are specified in the regulations; and arrest warrants under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Extradition Act.

The government has argued forcefully for these powers, yet it has dragged its feet in passing Bill C-17. In fact, the government has delayed for so long in passing the bill that some of the information-sharing clauses are now essentially moot.

Those clauses that would allow Canadian carriers to share information with foreign governments were contained in Bill C-44 which was introduced on November 28, 2001 and received royal assent three weeks later on December 18, 2001.

This timing was fortunate because one of the clauses of the U.S. law which was so quickly passed by both houses of the U.S. Congress in the aftermath of September 11 said that airlines would not be able to fly into the United States after January 18 unless they provided passenger reservations information to the U.S. customs service.

In Canada on October 7, 2002 the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency implemented its advance passenger information/passenger name record program that authorized airlines and passenger reservation systems to share information with various government agencies.

In the U.S. the government set an arbitrary deadline that this Liberal government had to scramble to meet. At the same time in Canada, a government department, the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, essentially gave up on waiting for the government to act and used its existing and residual powers to implement its advance passenger information/passenger name record program three weeks before the government reintroduced Bill C-42 for the second time as Bill C-17.

If the passenger information issue shows the need for the government to act, the inexplosive ammunition component issue shows the need for the government to listen. The words “inexplosive ammunition component” first appeared in part 5 of Bill C-42, the first predecessor of Bill C-17, on November 22, 2001.

Within two months the Library of Parliament prepared a research paper pointing out the potential problems of regulating inexplosive ammunition components. Essentially as witnesses ultimately told the legislative committee on Bill C-17, regulating inexplosive ammunition components was tantamount to criminalizing brass and lead, or regulating little bits of margarine containers, little bits of cotton fabric and fishing sinkers.

Naturally our party hoped when the Liberals brought back Bill C-42 as Bill C-55 on April 29, 2002, that they had read the Library of Parliament report. They had not. On May 9, 2002, roughly a year ago today, the member for Yorkton--Melville told the House that the definition would potentially criminalize tens of thousands of law-abiding citizens who load their own ammunition for their legal pastime sports.

When Bill C-55 died on the Order Paper and was revived in slightly modified form as Bill C-17 on October 31, there were some who hoped that the Liberals had listened. They had not. On Monday, November 18, 2002 the member for Yorkton--Melville spoke to Bill C-17 at second reading and essentially repeated verbatim his May 9, 2002 comments on inexplosive ammunition components.

It might make it easier on the translators or perhaps those who maintain the Hansard if a member repeats a speech, but for me it is a way of underlining the complete lack of attention on the other side of the House to the opposition members and indeed the concerns that average everyday Canadians face from time to time. Even after having given the same speech twice, there was some doubt as to whether the Liberals had received the message about inexplosive ammunition components. The only thing I can confirm is that the term was deleted from Bill C-17 by the legislative committee studying the bill.

To the extent that the term “inexplosive ammunition component” was of considerable concern to many Canadians, the fact that the legislative committee deleted it makes Bill C-17 much more palatable to Canadians. However the fact that such a controversial and frankly unnecessary clause could have been in Bill C-17 and its predecessors from November 22, 2001 until May 7, 2003 shows Canadians a government whose ears and eyes are welded shut.

Another area where the government has shown no willingness to listen or to be accountable is 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 behind interim orders is “trust me”, in other words “give me various undefined powers and when there is an emergency trust me to do the right thing”.

First, we cannot forget that the very same government that has taken more than 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 define both its responsibilities and its powers in very clear language.

In the United States the U.S. aviation and transportation security act was drafted just in 10 days after September 11. 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. 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. Canada in 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 has to be published in the Canada Gazette within 23 days, has to be approved by cabinet within 14 days, and expires at the end of the year. Similarly an interim order must be tabled in Parliament within 15 sitting days after it has been made.

Before the special legislative committee on Bill C-17, members from the Canadian Alliance, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP all tried to propose constructive amendments to the clauses of Bill C-17 dealing with interim orders. In the case of the 14 Canadian Alliance amendments, 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.

Section 61 of the Emergencies Act reads:

(1) 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.

(2) 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 our 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 that a lower standard should apply to Bill C-17.

The Canadian Alliance was not alone in this thinking. Both the NDP and the Bloc Québécois advanced a similar philosophy. It is my hope that the three parties might be able to agree on a common approach so that the higher level of parliamentary scrutiny may be offered to interim orders made by a government that wants us to trust it 18 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 at committee was one adding new clause 111.1 to Bill C-17 so that interim orders would be included in the Pest Control Products Act in the event that the act would receive royal assent before Bill C-17.

Other countries use clear language to define its government's responsibilities and its powers. The Liberal government uses interim orders. Previous governments believed that the standards of the Emergencies Act applied when Canada was threatened by a national emergency. The Liberal government believes in a dramatically lower standard of parliamentary accountability.

I conclude that the government's continued use of interim orders instead of defining its roles and responsibilities in a very clear language shows its unwillingness to either propose better legislation or to be more accountable to Parliament. Even if Bill C-17 passes third reading, it is possible that it will not receive royal assent before October. Members should think about this carefully.

September 11 happened and the U.S. had a law signed by the president and in place on November 18, roughly two months later. Canada will not have its law in place until nearly two years have passed, which is simply unacceptable. If it takes a Liberal-dominated Parliament two years to react to a major crisis, that is a very strong argument for a change of government.

It is quite clear that the committee state version of Bill C-17 is a definite improvement over Bill C-42 as first presented 17 months ago. It is also clear that Bill C-17 type legislation is necessary today. We will therefore be supporting the bill while calling upon the government to hold itself to a higher standard, particularly when asked to show leadership in times of crisis.

Committees of the House

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and I think if you were to seek it, you would find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, in relation to its studies on the Canadian Coast Guard, custodial management and other fisheries issues, a group comprised of four government members and one member of each of the opposition parties of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans be authorized to travel to Belgium, the United Kingdom, Norway and Iceland September 1 to 14, 2003, and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Deputy Speaker]

Before resuming debate, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Davenport, Agriculture; the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest, Health.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that 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, be read the third time and passed.

Public Safety Act, 2002

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak on Bill C-17. Naturally, the Bloc Quebecois has been critical of Bill C-17, and not only for political reasons. Sometimes, bills are viewed as having such an impact on our rights and freedoms that we must be able to make a clear demonstration to the Liberal members, the Liberal elected representatives, as well as to the people of Quebec and the people of Canada, of course. It is important to understand that fighting terrorism is a just cause recognized by Quebeckers and Canadians.

In the name of fighting terrorism, the government has managed to introduce a third bill on safety. It was not happy with just one or two; there had to be three. That takes some doing. It will soon be two years since the tragic events of September 11, and this bill has yet to be passed. Why? For the simple reason that in the name of fighting terrorism, the government members, the Liberal members, have chosen to listen to officials, at the RCMP and CSIS, who have been trying for the longest time to turn our society in an increasingly policed society. They want more power.

In the few minutes I have been granted I will try to illustrate how an anti-terrorism bill, whose purpose was agreed to by the community, could turn into such an invasion of our jurisdictions and a violation of our rights and freedoms that it was denounced by representatives of civil society, including the Canadian Bar Association, the Barreau du Québec, the Privacy Commissioner, the Access to Information Commissioner and the Canadian Council of Refugees. Most rights and freedoms advocates oppose Bill C-17 as it stands.

The Bloc Quebecois and members of the other opposition parties put forward amendments. None were accepted. More than 60 amendments put forward by the Bloc Quebecois simply echoed the concerns expressed in committee by the representatives of civil society.

I will try to give a brief summary to help those who are listening to understand a little better. The committee first heard from the Department of Transport. Naturally, the minister made presentations, but in committee, it is officials who defend bills that are before the standing committee.

I will quote part of the statement by John A. Read, Director General of Transport Canada, who testified before the committee on behalf of the department. There is only one, concise page that sums up quite well the spirit in which Transport Canada reviewed this bill.

After September 11, 2001, we started with legislation to fight terrorism. We kept asking the Minister of Transport and the Prime Minister a single question that I also asked, “What are you unable to do after September 11, that this legislation will allow you to do?” They were never able to answer that question. Believe it or not, I am sure they are still unable to answer it today.

However, the officials are able to answer us. I mentioned that there are officials whose goal it is to have our society increasingly under police control. I will read the statement by Mr. Read, Director General of Transport Canada.

In the fourth paragraph, according to Transport Canada, the basic intervention should be:

to upgrade all activities and equipment used to detect weapons and explosives (the “traditional” threat remains);

to have access to any aviation reservation systems to seek specific individuals (for example, watch list);

So, another type of list is being created that will keep tabs on regular travellers. Other points mentioned are:

to have access to all data concerning the persons on board or expected to be on board, if there is an immediate threat to that flight;

to improve inflight security by teaching dissuasion and intervention capabilities in aviation safety officer programs.

Many of these paragraphs make no mention of the fight against terrorism. The term anti-terrorism has been changed to aviation safety. The witnesses quickly learned the difference. It is no longer about fighting terrorism; the goal is simply to guarantee improved transportation security.

The fifth paragraph reads,

The ability to have access to any aviation reservation system to locate specific individuals to ensure transportation security, and the ability to have access to information if there is an immediate threat to that flight, are outlined in subsection 4.81—

So, their intention is to have access to all the reservation lists and all data on all passengers. This is what it says. That is the first objective.

In the following paragraph, Mr. Read states:

Transport Canada is not an investigative agency. However, some information could be retained beyond the seven days, such as information on individuals on a “watch list” with a reservation on a flight within 60 days.

Obviously, a list of regular passengers is being created. These individuals need to be more closely supervised. This is called a watch list. When these people make other reservations, obviously:

In such a case, Transport Canada would communicate this information to the RCMP to be retained, as allowed under proposed section 4.82 of the Aeronautics Act—

So, obviously, if we ever decide to travel slightly more often than usual, our names are recorded on the list, and then this information is given to the RCMP. Transport Canada does this, not the RCMP or CSIS, which is equivalent to the secret service. Transport Canada decides on its own to establish a watch list.

As for allowing Transport Canada to share this information with other federal entities, there is a provision in the bill that enables the department to send information to other entities. These federal entities have a presence at airports. Of course, it would not involve any random entity. But obviously, there are a few entities that have the right to do so: Canada Customs, Immigration Canada, the RCMP, CSIS, and the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority.

This information would be about us, the travelling public. It is a watch list that seems to focus on frequent travellers. Still, it is a list drawn up by Transport Canada using criteria that are no longer those of the war on terrorism, but of air transport security, which is a different matter altogether.

We see that in the bill a new offence has been added—air rage. But we will see how the lawyers describe air rage. Certainly, it is air rage if someone really wants to get out of the plane in mid-flight and has decided to destroy everything. But there are some people who are a little more nervous and keep themselves less in check. Because they have felt some stress in the aircraft, they will end up on the watch list and will be followed, but not by just anyone, by Customs, Immigration Canada, the RCMP, CSIS and the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority.

That is what Mr. Read told us and I will submit it for the record. I can add to Mr. Read's statement the presentation by Transport Canada staff members. As members of the committee we wanted to know what the RCMP and CSIS thought about it.

However, Deputy Commissioner Garry Loeppky, in charge of police operations, appeared before the committee. I have his speaking notes on Bill C-17 right here.

The fifth paragraph of his speaking notes reads as follows:

We must insist on the fact that this bill deals with transportation safety, not only counterterrorism.

That is what has been said since the very beginning, that is what they did not want to happen. They wanted a bill to fight terrorism, but when this is left to the RCMP and CSIS, to Transport Canada officials, they use the opportunity to legislate. Once again, I am rereading what he said:

We must insist on the fact that this bill deals with transportation safety not only counterterrorism.

Believe it or not, when I questioned Mr. Read from Transport Canada about all of the policing clauses, he was not the one who answered, it was the RCMP and CSIS representatives.

Clearly, several measures contained in this bill were written by legal advisers for the RCMP and CSIS, which was the purpose. How did they hide this? They told Parliament and the Liberals, “Listen, this is a bill that was not simply drafted to fight terrorism”. I would like to reread the fifth paragraph from the presentation made by deputy commissioner Garry Loeppky:

We must insist on the fact that this bill deals with transportation safety not only counterterrorism.

He then gave his interpretation.

Based on our interpretation of section 4.82, the RCMP is authorized to receive both domestic and international airline passenger lists for aircraft landing at, or taking off from Canadian airports, in order to check whether names... are listed in files of subjects in RCMP data banks, including the CPIC, and thereby discover suspected terrorists and threats to aircraft safety.

I would like to continue by quoting from paragraph 9. Earlier I mentioned that Transport Canada had created a new database called the watch list and that the RCMP mentioned it in paragraph 9, still from Mr. Loeppky's presentation:

The RCMP's databases already contain information that could be used to identify threats to transportation safety. The only way the RCMP can use this information effectively to ensure the safety of airline passengers is to compare names, birthdates, identity document numbers and other key biographical data on passengers about to board a plane with the names and document numbers found in its databases.

The objective is to compare the new watch list with the RCMP lists. What they are saying, and this appears in the deputy commissioner's document in last three lines of paragraph 9, is that:

This is personal information that people divulge almost every day. If the information about airline passengers does not raise any flags in our databases, then we will destroy the data.

Certainly, there is an opportunity to take note of the list of information that we must provide—information we provide every day, according to the RCMP. Look at the schedule on page 101 of the legislation to see that airline passengers must provide 34 items of information to the airline. If we go around with all this information, then we must spend almost half the day giving it out. We are talking about 34 items.

This includes telephone numbers, method of payment for the tickets, and if applicable, proof that the ticket was paid for by someone else. There is a lot of information. They cannot tell us that this is information we give out every day. We are talking about 34 items of information that we are required to give the airlines by law, that will now be part of Transport Canada's watch list if we are frequent travellers.

They did not hesitate to tell us that they do not collect the information because they do not have the skills to do so, but that they would prepare the watch list. That is what Mr. Read from Transport Canada said in paragraph 6 of his statement:

Transport Canada is not an investigative body. However, some information may have been retained for more than seven days, for instance the fact that someone on the watch list has a reservation for a flight—

While assuring us that they are not an investigative body, they list those that will have the information, namely Customs, Immigration, the RCMP, CSIS and the Canadian air transport security authority. Of course, we want to be able to compare the information.

Those who wish to review the transcripts of committee proceedings may do so; they are available. They will see that when candid questions were put to RCMP representatives, they were very upfront and told us that in the name of security and antiterrorism, they want to be able to track any person for whom a warrant has been issued, because reference will be made to warrants later. Finally, they want to be able to do what they are not usually able to do.

This is a good approach. When your name is put into the system, it is red flagged. The RCMP is contacted and you get arrested, for whatever reason. The reasons are not limited to terrorism; it may be anything relating to air transportation safety. Let me read the definition of transportation security, as set out in subsection 4.81(1) of the Public Safety Act, 2002. It reads as follows:

—the protection of any means of transportation or of any transportation infrastructure, including related equipment, from any actual or attempted action that could cause, or result in,—

It becomes obvious, then, that if any individual who is in trouble with the law for whatever reason travels by plane, he or she runs the risk of being arrested just for being considered a threat to transportation security.

What is dangerous with all this is that Transport Canada will use it as an excuse to add your name to the watch list, and they make it clear that they will be using it. When we read this kind of stuff back to the government, the government's response is, “That is not what we meant by that”. However, we can refer to the statement made by Director General Read, about:

—upgrading activities and all the equipment—

to have access to any information relating to persons on board or expected to be on board the aircraft, if the flight is subject to an immediate threat.

Clearly, what they want is to—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member for Argenteuil —Papineau—Mirabel but the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons has the floor, on a point of order.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to apologize to the hon. member who has the floor. There has been a series of negotiations in the last few minutes and I will move three motions the leaders have agreed to, if some want to check what I am saying.

This is to set the process for tonight's debate in committee of the whole. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice, when the House is in Committee of the Whole later today pursuant to Standing Order 81(4)(a), time be allotted to the recognized parties in the House in periods of 20 minutes as follows:

a) the first period to the Liberal Party; the second, to the Canadian Alliance; the third, to the Bloc Québécois; the fourth, [and this is a change from last year for reasons we will understand] to the Progressive Conservative Party; and the fifth, to the New Democratic Party; and subsequent periods shall be allocated to the parties in proportion to their representation in the House; and

b) within each 20-minute period, each party may allocate time to one or more of its members for speeches or for questions and answers, provided that, in the case of questions and answers, the minister's answer does not exceed the time taken by the question, and provided that, in the case of speeches, members of the party to which the period is allocated may speak one after the other.

That is exactly the formula that was used on June 4, 2002. Mr. Speaker, I have discussed this with various parties and I believe you will find unanimous consent for this motion.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Is there unanimous consent to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Is there unanimous consent to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to this agreement, I believe you will find unanimous consent that the vote, that was requested by one party, to be taken at the conclusion of government orders tomorrow on report stage of Bill C-25 now be deferred instead to 3 p.m. tomorrow.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.