Debates of May 9th, 2003

The House resumed 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 amendments) from the committee, and of Motion No. 6.

Public Safety Act, 2002

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-17 today.

As we can see and as listeners will be able to see at report stage, this bill is similar to previous bills, namely Bill C-55 and Bill C-42.

At second reading of this bill, the Bloc Quebecois voted against it. Despite the outstanding work my colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel did during of this bill, by pointing out and tackling serious problems, the government has refused to listen and to accept any amendment. Yet amendments could have been a step in the right direction, for the government, but as usual, it ignored the opposition.

I think the government is still doing what it has done since it was elected several years ago. Everything that comes from its side is perfect, while it does not want to listen to anything that opposition parties want to suggest to enhance, clarify and improve their bills in committee. The eight government members always adopt a common stand against the opposition members. Often, despite the fact that several government members do not even know what they will be voting on, they always agree with the government's amendments and are automatically against opposition parties' amendments, even though these amendments would improve the bills.

Let us not forget that, when this government introduces a bill, opposition members do their homework. We consult people and ask them what they think and what they would like to have improved in the bill. We connect with the reality in our communities. But we see that, while we are doing our homework, this government takes the bills that its bureaucrats provide it and endorses them unquestioningly.

This has happened once again with Bill C-17. Moreover, despite all the amendments and motions brought forward by the opposition, this bill goes against the privacy commissioner's proposals. There is a part of this bill that deals with everything that affects privacy.

During the study of the second version of this bill, Bill C-55, the privacy commissioner said that he had major objections. When that bill was withdrawn, we thought that, when it was reintroduced as Bill C-17, the government would take the privacy commissioner's objections into consideration. But the opposition is unable to change the government's position. Even the privacy commissioner, who was appointed to protect Canadians' privacy, is unable to do so.

I would like those listening to know how important it is that this government listen to the Privacy Commissioner. He believes 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, and this worries him enormously.

Why is he worried? He is worried 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.

Although we in the Bloc Quebecois wish Quebec to become a sovereign nation, at present we are still part of Canada. In Canada, it is well established that we are not required to identify ourselves to police unless we are being arrested or we are carrying out a licensed activity such as driving. The right to anonymity with regard to the state is a crucial privacy right.

Since we are required to identify ourselves to airlines as a condition of air travel and since section 4.82 would give the RCMP unrestricted access to the passenger information obtained by airlines, this would set the extraordinarily privacy-invasive precedent—and invasive it is—of effectively requiring compulsory self-identification to the police.

Finally, there is a very serious problem with Bill C-17. We share the opinion of the privacy commissioner, who says that the proposed amendments are an insult to the intelligence of Canadians. It is serious when a privacy commissioner tells the government that, in Bill C-17, clause 4.82 is an insult to the intelligence of Canadians. The government has turned a deaf ear, and I am dumbfounded. The amendments proposed under this new bill present no new solutions to the fundamental issues regarding the principle.

The government is now proposing regulations limiting the Criminal Code offence warrants under which the RCMP will be conducting searches. However, it does nothing to address the fundamental principle that the police have no business using this extraordinary access to personal information to search for people wanted on warrants for any offences unrelated to terrorism.

The privacy commissioner is so discouraged that he is appealing to parliamentarians, because this is insulting to Parliament; he says that it is now up to Parliament to explain to these people that privacy is a fundamental human right of Canadians that must be respected, rather than treated with the apparent indifference that the government is showing.

I think that the privacy commissioner's statements reflect the values that the Bloc Quebecois is defending. We agree with his words and utter them in turn, because people's privacy is at stake.

That is why the Bloc Quebecois is asking that the government's proposed amendments on the powers of the RCMP and CSIS to collect information cease to exist, and that this bill be taken back to the drawing board to ensure that privacy is respected.

For now, Canada is not a totalitarian state. We enjoy freedom of expression in this country, where privacy is one of the most important things we have.

I join my hon. colleague for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel in telling the government that the Bloc Quebecois will be voting against this bill. Furthermore, I will go further than my colleague and ask the government to withdraw Bill C-17.

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

Madam Speaker, I have listened with some fascination to the comments that have been made by the various members of opposition parties to Bill C-17, the public safety act, and to the amendments that the government has brought to that bill.

I would like to put a little bit of context to my comments before I address some the concerns that have been raised. First, how do Canadians feel about the government dealing with their rights for the sake of fighting crime and preventing terrorism?

Canadians understand that privacy is extremely important, that it is one of the fundamental tenets on which our democracy is built, but they also understand that public safety, individual safety is also a very important issue.

In April 2002 the Ipsos-Reid poll showed 66% of those Canadians surveyed felt that the police should be given more power to fight crime even if it might be seen as an infringement of some individual rights. Some 66% felt that terrorism threats outweighed the protection of privacy rights. As of September 9, 2002, the Ipsos-Reid poll indicated that 59% of Canadians felt that the federal government had not done enough to ensure that the police had the necessary tools to fight terrorism.

At times government has to lead public poll. I do not believe that the government has not done enough and I certainly do not believe that we should willy-nilly infringe on individual rights to privacy, and the government does not either.

Now let us address some of the issues that were raised by some members of the opposition. They said that there was a problem on disclosure to third parties when if the information that is retained from the airline passenger manifests, that the RCMP or CSIS could disclose to a third party and there would be no control over respecting privacy rights.

The member from the Bloc just talked about how they have consulted their communities and the public and that they have taken into account the consultation with their communities and their public.

Personally, I think that all federal MPs have an obligation to hold public consultations on this issue. I think that those members, on both sides of the House, who take an interest in this issue have held consultations. It is not the exclusive privilege or the exclusive responsibility or the exclusive duty of members of opposition parties to consult their community, their constituents and the general public regarding a bill or a motion, whether it comes from the government or from the opposition.

I can say that members on the government side have held consultations. Indeed, we have seen the results of these consultations in the questions that Liberal members sitting on the legislative committee that studied Bill C-17 asked of witnesses who made representations and presented briefs to this committee.

I would even say that the most relevant and the most difficult questions that were put to the RCMP, to CSIS and to officials from the departments of transport, immigration, revenue and the solicitor general came from government members.

I do not want to deny the fact that difficult questions also came from opposition members.

However, I believe that anyone reviewing the transcripts would see that Liberal members generally asked more difficult questions than did opposition members.

Questions were asked and statements were made by the privacy commissioner during the legislative committee hearings.

During those hearings the privacy commissioner raised some very important issues. He said that he had concerns, if subclause 4.8(2) were to remain as it is laid out, about the RCMP's ability to scan passenger information to search for persons wanted on warrants. He had very serious concerns about that.

What did the government do? The government took those concerns seriously and, therefore, the “identification of persons for whom a warrant has been issued” was removed as a primary purpose for collecting passenger information. What does that government amendment, which was approved and adopted in committee, actually mean? It means that the RCMP would now only be able to access passenger information for the purpose of transportation security.

That was a clear concern of the privacy commissioner. The privacy commissioner had no issue with the RCMP being able to access airline passenger manifests for the purpose of transportation security. His problem was with subclause 4.8(2) which, as it was originally written, the RCMP, as a primary purpose, would have been able to search for people for whom warrants had been issued.

Subclause 4.8(2) has now been amended and, hopefully, when the vote in the House at report stage happens, the House will adopt the amendment, which was approved and adopted in committee, that would limit the RCMP.

We took the privacy commissioner's concerns on that issue very seriously but we obviously needed to retain the aspect of transportation security in the regime because it is necessary for public safety. That is the raison d'être of the bill.

What was one of the other privacy commissioner's concerns? He had a concern that as Bill C-17 was initially written there were outmoded offences for which warrants had been issued, such as fraudulently altering brands on cattle or other offences that, we could almost guarantee, would not put public safety at risk nor public transportation safety at risk, such as municipal corruption.

The privacy commissioner made a big point about that and said that it was ridiculous. Many of the offences that were listed under this clause would have allowed the RCMP to detain a passenger if it found that the passenger was wanted for an outstanding warrant. We changed that definition and narrowed it substantially to apply to only serious offences. Those offences would be directly related to terrorist or transportation security threats, such as the use of explosives or participation in a terrorist group. I give that as an example.

The privacy commissioner raised his concerns at committee and the government took those concerns seriously. The last point I want to make is that the privacy commissioner stated clearly in committee that he had all the oversight mechanisms required for him to ensure that the application of this legislation, once it is adopted, will be respected by the RCMP and by CSIS.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased today to speak to Bill C-17 on public safety. Hon. members will recall that this bill, while containing some changes, has basically already been C-42 and then C-55. Today we are looking at a new version which, as I will explain a little later, has been modified based on Bill C-42.

Initially, I took part in the debate on Bill C-55, particularly in connection with three fundamental aspects of that bill. I spoke about the matter of the controlled access military zone, which the bill stipulated established a security perimeter.

The second aspect I addressed during the debate on C-55 concerned the matter of interim orders, which are still there in Bill C-17, although some changes have been made. These include the time lapse between the making of the interim order and the time it is tabled. Despite the changes in deadlines, I will explain how the essence and the very bases of the verification process for the use of these orders are still flawed. We would have liked to have seen a verification on the use of these orders within a broader framework that would include the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and not just the enabling legislation.

The third aspect I addressed, which has to all intents and purposes undergone no change whatsoever in becoming Bill C-17, is the matter of the exchange of information. In Bill C-17 there is still a significant role played by the RCMP, no longer necessarily in gathering the information, but Bill C-17 still retains the possibility of being able to pass on certain information, to law enforcement officers among others.

We might have expected the government to respect not just what the Bloc Quebecois was calling for, but also the opinion voiced by the Privacy Commissioner.

Therefore, of course, as to the controlled access military zones, we have to admit that the Bloc Quebecois won the battle. Indeed, members will recall that, at the time, we opposed such a zone that would create a perimeter. However, last October 31, the government took this change into account after repeated demands by the Bloc Quebecois, and this provision was deleted from Bill C-17. We essentially wanted to maintain the necessary balance between security and freedom. The controlled access military zone did create a fundamental imbalance, which was not consisten with a democratic society.

There was also another aspect to this issue because the government could certainly have abused its power, the minister having a clearly established discretionary power. We felt that by granting such power to the minister, the government had gone too far.

Finally, with this security perimeter that would have been established—I say “would”, because it is not provided for in Bill C-17— the government had, to all intents and purposes, stripped the population of rights they were entitled to expect to enjoy. Indeed, this controlled access zone denied people living within its boundaries and perimeter some basic democratic rights that Canada has always proudly advocated.

Luckily, we won the battle thanks to the efforts of the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel. We clearly stated on October 31 that we had won. However, I will remind the House that we will monitor this issue very closely, because this balance between security and freedom must be maintained.

Another important aspect is the issue of interim orders. Again, we saw that the bill contains provisions to this effect. Of course, in terms of tabling in Parliament, the period between the tabling of the order in Parliament and the moment it comes into force was reduced. We would obviously have liked it to be reduced to five days. The government decided instead to keep a 15 day period, as in Bill C-55. Remember that in Bill C-42, the order took effect immediately upon being tabled in Parliament. So, this is a bit of an improvement over Bill C-55. Of course it is better than C-42, but we would have like the order to come into force within five days of being tabled.

Not only is the time lapse a problem, but it is also important that there be a preliminary check for compliance with the enabling legislation and with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Bill C-42 contained nothing to this effect, and nor did Bill C-55. However, we would have liked to see this preliminary check included in Bill C-17. However, there is nothing of the sort. Several motions to that effect were moved, but unfortunately they were all rejected.

The third aspect of the bill I would like to talk about, after the controlled access military zone and after the interim order, is the issue of information exchange.

I know I do not have much time left, but it is important to recall that what the Bloc Quebecois was calling for was that the right to privacy be protected. Incidentally, on November 1, 2002, the Privacy Commissioner gave his interpretation of the bill, with respect to this issue of information sharing. On November 1, 2002, he said:

—my concern is 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.

He also said:

The implications of this are extraordinarily far-reaching.

There are two aspects to this exchange of information. The first is that even if we are quite satisfied with the fact that the RCMP will no longer be responsible for the collection of data, we are still concerned about the powers the RCMP to pass on information to peace officers, among others.

We must not forget that in a democracy, the right to privacy is a fundamental right. In Canada, it is established that people are not required to identify themselves to the police except if they are arrested or doing something that requires a permit, such as driving a motor vehicle.

I will conclude by saying that, with regard to the three iaspects of Bill C-42, Bill C-55 and Bill C-17, which is before the House today, the Bloc won its case on the issue of controlled access military zones.

On the issue of interim orders, we would have preferred a shorter time lapse between the tabling of these interim orders in the House and their coming into force. We would have preferred that it be shortened from 15 to 5 days. Moreover, we would have preferred that a preliminary check be made under the enabling legislation, and also the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Finally, concerning the exchange of information, we would have preferred that the RCMP not have the power to pass on certin information on people.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

I would like to remind members that cellular phones are not allowed in the House.

The hon. member for Joliette.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, unlike some previous speakers, it is with a lot a frustration that I rise on Bill C-17.

This is the third time that the government has introduced a public safety bill. We first had Bill C-42, which contained a whole series of safety measures that were clearly excessive in terms of rights and freedoms. Then, marginal corrections were made with Bill C-55. And now, the government has introduced Bill C-17, which is essentially identical to Bill C-42 and Bill C-55.

Clearly, the government did not learn from its mistakes. As with Bill C-35—which was passed—as with the airport security tax, the government has adopted or is proposing a whole series of measures, in the aftermath of the tragic events of September 11, 2001, which ultimately do not seem to be of any use in the fight against terrorism. I remind the House that Bill C-35, which was passed despite the Bloc Quebecois' opposition, contains all kinds of threats and injuries to rights and freedoms and has not been of any use whatsoever in the fight against terrorism in Canada since it was passed.

I would now like to talk about the air security charge; the government has been unable to demonstrate that this tax contributes in any way to paying for the equipment and technologies necessary to ensure airport security. While the airline industry, both in Canada and in the United States, is going through a catastrophic crisis, an additional tax does not help matters. There was so much government improvisation on this issue that, in the last budget in February, the Finance Minister had to reduce the tax significantly; yet, he kept it, which akes no sense whatsoever.

As I said, the government has been unable to demonstrate that this tax was needed.

On several occasions I have wanted to make this point in the House. Bill C-17 now gives me that opportunity. We have been led to believe, in Canada and in the United States, that a person taking a taxi, a bus or a train is considered as a customer, but the Canadian and U.S. governments consider airport or airline customers as potential criminals or terrorists. No wonder people are staying away from the airlines and airports: they are being treated as potential terrorists and criminals.

Bill C-17 is very much a part of all this. I think this act is of no use whatsoever in the fight against terrorism. Members will recall that this was the purpose. The government should have realized, since the tragic events of September 11, that it should have found another way to fight terrorism. As months passed by, one would have expected the government to understand that such measures dare of no use in the fight against terrorism, and it should have dropped the idea after Bill C-55 died on the Order Paper. Yet, the government introduced a new bill, Bill C-17, which, except for one element as I said, goes along the exact same lines as Bills C-42 and C-55.

This was raised by the hon. member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, and I think that it must be stressed. Bill C-17 dropped the excessive idea of controlled access military zones, or military security zones as they were called in Bill C-42. In large part, this is a Bloc Quebecois victory. We will recall that these zones could be of unlimited size, without any control being exercised, that the RCMP could declare them without providing any justification, without having to check with or be accountable to anyone, and that this could be done without the consent of the affected provinces.

Think, for example, of the Quebec City summit. The federal government could have unilaterally decided to declare a controlled access military zone for the whole of Quebec City, the national capital of Quebeckers. The purpose would have been to prevent the potential arrival of terrorists, and particularly to prevent citizens concerned with the current negotiations on the free trade zone of the Americas from coming to express their concern to the leaders and heads of state of the 34 countries that are parties to these negotiations.

As I said, this idea of this kind of controlled access military zone was dropped. Still, the new proposal to establish zones through orders is cause for concern to us. Nowhere does it say that the consent of the affected provinces will be required for these military security zones to be created.

The Bloc Quebecois would have liked for all of this to just disappear, but we will remain extremely vigilant, even though, as I said earlier, the fact that the initial idea of controlled access military zones was dropped must be regarded as a Bloc Quebecois victory.

There were two other elements that worried us and that still worry us: everything related to the interim orders as well as everything related to sharing information on airline passengers, who are now viewed by the Canadian government as potential terrorists, as I was saying earlier, regardless of whom they may be. These are concerns that also have to do with the protection of privacy.

I would like to say more about both of these matters, the interim orders and the exchange of information, particularly between the RCMP and CSIS. I know what I am talking about with regard to CSIS because when I was the president of the Conseil central de Montréal of the CSN, we realized that we had been infiltrated by CSIS. This occurred even though everyone knows that the CSN and all unions in Quebec are institutions that are not only recognized, but extremely democratic and transparent. So, I may have more apprehensions than others when it comes to giving special powers to the RCMP and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

With regard to interim orders, the new bill stipulates—or it will if, unfortunately, it is passed—that, “The Minister may make an interimorder that contains any provision that may becontained in a regulation made under this Actif the Minister believes that immediate actionis required to deal with a significant risk,direct or indirect, to health, safety or theenvironment”.

In subsection 4, we read the following, “An interim order is exempt from the application of sections 3, 5 and 11 of the Statutory Instruments Act and published in the Canada Gazette within twenty-three days after it is made.

So, under the new section 30.1 and subsection 4, proposed interim orders will not be required to comply with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights. It is quite significant and worrisome that a minister could decide to issue an interim order without first having to ensure it complies with instruments that are supposed to protect the rights and freedoms of Canadians and Quebeckers.

These provisions are extremely dangerous. Unfortunately, I have just one minute left, and I have addressed only the matter of interim orders. We believe that these interim orders must be required to pass the test of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In conclusion, I want to say that the privacy commissioner is extremely concerned by the possibility that the RCMP and CSIS could exchange information on airline passengers, and we believe that the legislation should be much more restrictive than this.

For all these reasons, I am not only somewhat frustrated, but I will be voting against Bill C-17.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak today as the Bloc Quebecois critic and a member of the legislative committee that analyzed Bill C-17, clause by clause, proposing amendments to it.

The Bloc Quebecois, which I represent, introduced 49 amendments to this bill. Believe it or not, the Liberals retained not a single one. I am therefore disconcerted to hear Liberals, including the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, who has been telling us that the Liberal members were the ones to ask the hardest questions of the RCMP, CSIS and Transport. With all due respect to that member, regardless of the questions she may have raised, the bill was nevertheless not changed. That is the reality.

They can say in this House that they were hard on the RCMP and CSIS representatives, who I am sure quaked at the questions asked by the Liberals. At any rate, we knew very well that there would not be any major changes made to the bill.

We in the Bloc Quebecois introduced 49 amendments and we did not just pull them out of a hat. They reflect the proposals made to us by witnesses before the committee. I am not referring to those from Transport, CSIS, the RCMP and the police organizations anxious to have a police state in Canada and in Quebec. I am referring to the representatives of civil society. I will reserve for the end the independent commission members, who are supposed to be independent individuals appointed to defend our interests, that is the Canadian Bar Association, the Law Society of Upper Canada, the Barreau du Québec and all the other civil organizations which came and told us that this was the greatest encroachment on civil liberties that Canada has ever known. That is the reality. I will read some of the comments and representations from the Canadian Bar Association shortly.

Nevertheless, I want this to be clearly understood. In the name of terrorism and the war on terrorism, subjects we all agree on, the RCMP and CSIS, hand in glove with the Department of Transport, have given us a bill that will threaten our civil liberties. That is the reality.

I am simply going to quote the words of the privacy commissioner, who is independent and appointed by the government explicitly to protect people's rights. He is not there to protect the rights of the Bloc Quebecois or the members of the Bloc Quebecois. He is there to protect the rights of the whole population. This quotation summarizes in two or three paragraphs what this bill is all about. Thus, the commissioner says, in a letter addressed to the government, and I quote:

In Canada, police forces cannot normally compel businesses to provide personal information about citizens unless they obtain a warrant. Section 4.82 would entitle the national police force and the national security service to demand personal information about all Canadian air travellers without any judicial authorization.

That means, as things stand, that when this bill becomes law, the airlines will provide information—Bill C-44, which was passed last year, already authorizes them to provide information and exchange such information with our neighbours to the south—but the RCMP and CSIS will be able to use it for other purposes. That is what those terrible questions that the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine says she asked of the RCMP and CSIS boils down to.

After my colleagues and I asked our questions and got answers, it became clear that finding terrorists is not the only purpose of this bill. At the same time, they are going to try to do what they cannot do now.

And that means those who use air transportation will be more closely monitored than travellers using any other means of transportation in Canada. Of course, this is the result of September 11, because that was a horrible event we never want to see happen again. Unfortunately, people travelling by air will pay the penalty and a databank on frequent flyers will be created.

That is what will happen. Information on frequent travellers will be kept in the data banks monitored by the RCMP and CSIS. That is why the Bloc Quebecois supports the recommendations of the privacy commissioner, who wanted to add the following to paragraph 4.82 (14). I will not read 4.82 in its entirety; the part that the privacy commissioner wanted to add is clear enough on its own. He wanted to add this:

—and a copy of this record must be provided within seven days to the PrivacyCommissioner of Canada unless the Privacy Commissioner waives this requirement inwriting to the Commissioner and/or the Director.

Given the nature of the information that will be kept by the RCMP and CSIS, for whatever reason, the privacy commissioner was saying that since there was injury to rights--and this is an historical precedent--there must be some guidelines. Businesses are not allowed give out private information on their clients. According to the legislation, the RCMP and CSIS can keep the information for seven days. After that, they may keep it longer if it is required for security purposes. The privacy commissioner simply said that if information is going to be kept longer than seven days, he would like a copy of the files to ensure that it was being kept for reasons of protection and security, to fight terrorism for example, so that he could determine that it was not being used for purposes not consistent with the legislation?

Believe or not, CSIS is against that, as are the RCMP and Transport Canada. The Bloc Quebecois amendment requesting that this be added to the act, as requested by the rivacy commissioner, was rejected.

A member of the Liberal caucus who was on the committee said that the members of her party had some very hard-hitting questions for RCMP and CSIS witnesses. In spite of their answers, I know very well that this legislation was drawn up by the RCMP and CSIS for their own ends and that the transport department did not have a say.

Of course, police organizations dream of turning Canada and Quebec into police states. This is terrible. It would be to lose the fight against terrorism when the very thing that terrorists want to do is undermine our rights as a free and democratic society. That is what the terrorists were trying to do.

Today, we are letting them win by allowing our police organizations, such as the RCMP and CSIS, to collect information on frequent passengers from independent data bases. It will be possible to use this information without the privacy commissioner being able to check the data.

Moreover, there is a clause that says that this information will not be subject to the provisions of the Access to Information Act. Certain provisions in this act say that, for security reasons, the information commissioner is not required to respond to certain requests. However, despite these provisions, the bill before us and air passenger information are totally exempt from the Access to Information Act. In other words, we will never be able to know the contents of a file kept by the RCMP or CSIS. It is even worse.

On this issue, I will let the information commissioner and those who will ask questions make up their own mind. However, the commissioner's report was very clear. To him, it was the worst decision, the worst bill or the worst recommendation ever brought forward in Parliament.

Again, I must point out that the information commissioner and the privacy commissioner are independent persons appointed by the government to defend the interests of Quebeckers and Canadians.

When the Canadian Bar Association and the Barreau du Québec support the privacy commissioner request for access to information, it means that all of civil society is critical of this bill. Again, I am sorry that Liberal members did not understand civil society's message.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my hon. colleague on the job he has done on Bill C-17, which was not an easy one. This bill concerns our fundamental rights as human beings, as individuals. I want to congratulate him because he has put forward very useful amendments. Unfortunately, the government rejected them all, as is often the case here, in this Parliament.

Allow me to set things in context for the benefit of listeners. It is not the first time that this kind of a bill has been introduced in the House of Commons. The current bill is a new version of Bill C-55 on public safety introduced in 2002, itself a new version of Bill C-42.

Last spring, our remarks on Bill C-55 focussed on three major areas: controlled access military zones, interim orders and information sharing. These are three vital areas.

Regarding the controlled access military zones, we could claim victory, given that these were completely dropped from the bill. The bill does, however, still contain provisions concerning interim orders, although the timeframes for their tabling in Parliament and approval by cabinet have been considerably reduced. And our main concern, namely the lack of advance verification for consistency, remains.

I have here a press release from the information commissioner. I am sure that no one has read all of it. Let me do so, because it is important and it will help members understand why we have such concerns about this bill.

This news release was written November 1, 2002 by the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. I quote:

Since last May, I have expressed extremely grave concerns about one provision of what was then Bill C-55, the federal Government’s Public Safety Act. This same provision has now been reintroduced, with only minimal and unsatisfactory change, in the replacement legislation, Bill C-17.

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.

I have raised no objection to the primary purpose of this provision, which is to enable the RCMP and CSIS to use this passenger information for anti-terrorist “transportation security” and “national security” screening. But my concern is 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.

The implications of this are extraordinarily far-reaching.

In Canada, it is well established that we are not required to identify ourselves to police unless we are being arrested or we are carrying out a licensed activity such as driving. The right to anonymity with regard to the state is a crucial privacy right. Since we are required to identify ourselves to airlines as a condition of air travel and since section 4.82 would give the RCMP unrestricted access to the passenger information obtained by airlines, this would set the extraordinarily privacy-invasive precedent of effectively requiring compulsory self-identification to the police.

I am prepared, with some reluctance, to accept this as an exceptional measure that can be justified, in the wake of September 11, for the limited and specific purposes of aviation security and national security against terrorism. But I can find no reason why the use of this de facto self-identification to the police should be extended to searching for individuals who are of interest to the state because they are the subject of warrants for Criminal Code offences unrelated to terrorism. That has the same effect as requiring us to notify the police every time we travel, so that they can check whether we are wanted for something.

The Commissioner then said:

If the police were able to carry out their regular Criminal Code law enforcement duties without this new power before September 11, they should likewise be able to do so now. The events of September 11 were a great tragedy and a great crime; they should not be manipulated into becoming an opportunity—an opportunity to expand privacy-invasive police powers for purposes that have nothing to do with anti-terrorism.

If we accept the principle that air travellers within Canada can in effect be forced by law to identify themselves to police for scrutiny against lists of wanted suspects, then there is nothing to prevent the same logic from being applied in future to other modes of transportation. Particularly since this provision might well discourage wanted individuals from travelling by air, why not extend the same scrutiny to train travellers, bus passengers or anyone renting a car? Indeed, the precedent set by this provision could ultimately open the door to practices similar to those that exist in societies where police routinely board trains, establish roadblocks or stop people on the street to check identification papers in search of anyone of interest to the state.

The place to draw the line in protecting the fundamental human right of privacy is at the very outset, at the first unjustifiable intrusion. In this instance, that means amending the bill to remove all reference to warrants and thus limit the police to matching passenger information against anti-terrorism and national security databases.

The concerns that I have raised in this matter since last spring have been publically endorsed by the Information and Privacy Commissioner of British Columbia and the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario; by members of every party in the House of Commons, notably including a member of the government's own Liberal caucus who is an internationally recognized expert on human rights—

I cannot not name that person, but I am sure you know who it is.

and by editorials in newspapers including the Toronto Star, the Globe and Mail, the Vancouver Sun, the Vancouver Province, the Calgary Herald and the Edmonton Journal.

These concerns have now been ignored by the Government.

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.

The Government now proposes to have regulations limiting the Criminal Code offence warrants for which the RCMP will be searching. But this does nothing to address the fundamental point of principle that the police have no business using this extraordinary access to personal information to search for people wanted on warrants for any offences unrelated to terrorism.

As well, in the new bill the Government has removed the “identification of persons for whom a warrant has been issued” as a “purpose” for accessing passenger information under the legislation. But this is meaningless--indeed disingenuous--since the RCMP would remain empowered to match this information against a database of persons wanted on warrants and to use such matches to bring about arrests. It insults the intelligence of Canadians to suggest, as the Government does in its press release accompanying the bill, that the RCMP may “incidentally” come upon individuals wanted on Criminal Code warrants--if the police are to match names of passengers against a database of individuals wanted on Criminal Code warrants, there can be nothing “incidental” about finding them.

Madam Speaker, here we have the commissioner's fundamental reaction and it is serious; he has gone to the trouble of analyzing this entire issue in depth. Therefore, I am very much afraid of seeing this bill pass. I hope that there is still some chance, as we are now at the report stage, of amending the bill and ensuring that no one's rights will be injured.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Madam Speaker, I too am pleased to rise in the House and also share with my colleague from the Bloc, who just took her place, the concern and the fear we have with Bill C-17.

We know Bill C-17 is the son and daughter of Bill C-42 and Bill C-55 respectively. It is a public safety act. Some people would claim it to be a public relations act. We are concerned because the sweeping powers that were in the earlier bill are in this reincarnation, a sense that government, officials and authority can do whatever they want, whenever they choose. The privacy commissioner says that the police have all the powers they require now to arrest and detain people whom they suspect, and therefore this is not necessary.

Some of us lived through the War Measures Act. Some of us were at the Quebec summit in Quebec City in 2001. To me, people who are proposing this bill seem to be saying that security trumps privacy, and we have some grave concerns about that.

The member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine commented on public opinion polls which said that Canadians in the aftermath of September 11 were prepared to forsake some of their privacy for additional security. I would say respectfully back to her that for a lot of hard-working Canadians that may in fact be a reality. However it is even more incumbent on those who Canadians elect to places and chambers, like the House of Commons, the legislators and parliamentarians, to ensure that our safety and security laws are there, but that they are there in balance to ensure guaranteed privacy when and where Canadians need it.

On the bill itself, because there are a number of different acts that roll into this legislation, the transport minister's regulations concerning the Aeronautics Act, making powers concerning aviation safety, I concede are better defined than they were in Bill C-42. The lack of specifics in this area was one of the concerns we had about the original bill, specifically our transport critic, the member for Churchill. Therefore we regard this as a mild improvement.

As well, in a feeble attempt to address the concerns of the privacy commissioner, the clause allowing RCMP designated officers to access passenger information to identify those individuals with outstanding arrest warrants has been removed and the bill would now only allow RCMP and CSIS officials to access passenger information for national or transportation security purposes. This too is an improvement. However they may still use this information to pursue individuals with outstanding arrest warrants if the crimes they are wanted for carry a potential sentence of five years or greater.

The privacy commissioner has stated publicly that this change is insufficient to protect the right of Canadians to privacy. In our opinion there are still insufficient safeguards in this current legislation to prevent intrusion, particularly since this information can be shared with American customs officials who currently have a racial profiling policy.

Let me just stop there and, as an aside, tell the House that I recently travelled in company with the secretary treasurer of the Canadian Labour Congress, who is of Arab descent and who travels quite extensively in his job. According to Hassan Yussuff, when he travels through the United States and looks at the people who are pulled aside at the airports for particular and thorough security checks, it is always people of Muslim and Arab descent.

The House heard from my colleague earlier today, the member for Vancouver East. She outlined the concern expressed by the Muslim organization, COMO, with regard to this.

We not only want to protect and ensure that citizens in Canada and people who are travelling here are protected, we also want to ensure they are not singled out, which seems to be the case in some other countries.

One of our major points of opposition to the bill was the clause concerning the military security zones, and it has been repealed. I congratulate the government. In its place the government will use existing legislation to establish controlled access zones to protect naval vessels at three ports: Halifax on the east coast, and Esquimalt and Nanoose Bay on the west coast. These three locations already have military facilities.

On the interim order powers, it now requires an order to be approved by the governor in council within 14 days, not 90 days. It must also be tabled in Parliament within 15 days regardless of whether Parliament is in session. We do not oppose these changes but they are rather insignificant and, in our opinion, do not address sufficiently the concerns we have about potential abuse in this area.

With regard to the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority Act, this act received royal assent after Bill C-42 was tabled. This is updated to reflect that the act was passed. If the government had its act together this section would have appeared in Bill C-42 as a conditional amendment. The fact that it did not, further underlines how the government seems to have been making up its security policy on the fly for many months now.

The Marine Transportation Security Act is another area that was not contained in Bill C-42. It would have empowered the government to contribute funds to port authorities to help pay for new security measures, something that our caucus supports.

The Criminal Code broadens the scope and we will continue to support that clause of the bill. We can also give our support to a couple of other minor clauses.

I would like to go back and conclude with the points that were made by the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine about the fact that with the changes the privacy commissioner can now support what is before us. I am troubled that the bill, which would enact measures for implementing the biological and toxin weapons convention, that there were amendments put forward by my colleague, the member for Churchill, that specifically impacted on the privacy commissioner and which were defeated at committee. Because they were defeated at committee they were not allowed to be debated here in the House.

I just want to pick out one of them. Motion No. 1 stated:

The Privacy Commissioner may review all material received in respect of the transactions described in subsection (1) to ensure that section 4.81 has been complied with.

To follow up on the argument that was advanced by the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, it would seem to me that if the committee has looked at this and the privacy commissioner has been satisfied, then I fail to understand why a reasonable amendment, such as the one that I have just read into the record that was advanced by the member for Churchill, would have been defeated by the Liberal majority on the committee.

Although there are some improvements in Bill C-17 over its earlier incarnations, this caucus, along with others on the opposition side, cannot support Bill C-17 and we will be voting against it.

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

Madam Speaker, I beg your indulgence to wish, in the remaining 35 seconds, on my behalf and on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois MPs, a happy Mother's Day to all the mothers in this House, in Canada, most particularly to the ones in my constituency, and, especially to my own mother.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

What a good idea. Happy Mother's Day to all the mothers in this House, myself included.

It being 1:33 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-249, an act to amend the Competition Act, as reported (with amendements) from the committee.

Competition Act

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, ON]

moved that Bill C-249, an act to amend the Competition Act, as amended, be concurred in at report stage.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

When shall the bill be read a third time? By leave, now?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, ON]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Madam Speaker, first, I want to thank the member on the other side who brought to the attention of the House the fact that Sunday will be Mother's Day.

I want to wish a happy Mother's Day to all my constituents and to all Canadian women who will be celebrating that important day.

I am pleased to rise to speak at third reading of Bill C-249; it has been a few years. It deals with a substantive, important change to the Competition Act. I would like to thank the industry committee, including its chair, the member for St. Catharines, as well as my colleague the vice-chair, representing the Alliance, and members of all other parties for their work in making this such an important milestone as far as private members' bills are concerned.

The bill has as its origins the need to ensure that the loophole created in 1986, which in effect allows anti-competitive activity, not occur unless factors other than efficiency are considered. The case that was before the House dealt with Superior Propane and that issue saw a potentially damaging merger take place. The reality is that the language of the act was in dire need of change as a result.

I am pleased that Bill C-249 as amended has the support of the competition commission, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and a substantial number of consumer groups across the country.

As the competition commissioner said at committee on March 31:

The bill seeks to ensure that consumers are not left out of the equation when considering mergers involving efficiency claims. It would also safeguard competition to the benefit of consumers and the [Canadian] economy.

I want to point out that nowhere else in the world is there an efficiencies defence that is used to promote a potentially damaging merger that would see consumers and the competitive process harmed, not in the United States, not in Europe, not in Australia, nowhere around the world. Other competitive processes always try to at least balance the interests of consumers and the interests of those who are trying to create certain types of innovations and efficiencies.

Unfortunately, the act was left wide open for interpretation. It is correct and appropriate, as the committee quite rightly pointed out rather substantially, not only for this Parliament, that the issue be fully addressed. The commissioner also suggested that the act in itself is an important public knowledge document that allows consumers to certainly be aware of the fact that any quantifiable efficiencies would be treated appropriately.

Former Federal Trade Commission chair Robert Pitofsky pointed this out on the question of efficiencies:

My view is that the acceptance and clarification of the role of efficiencies in defense of mergers has been, on balance, a useful development in the United States. If there are no significant efficiencies, enforcement agencies and judges can be much more comfortable finding that particular mergers are anti-competitive--

His concern, which I think speaks very much to the concern we have here in Canada, was that benefits can only happen if they are likely to be passed on to consumers and efficiencies cannot be achieved in a substantially less anti-competitive way.

More important, I believe that the position taken for some years by groups and organizations that have tremendous concern with this precedent and with the wording of the act agrees that efficiencies in terms of merger review should not be stand-alone, that in fact they should be compared to all other factors. The amendment prescribed by the industry committee is appropriate and correct and I believe that Parliament must pass this bill. More important, I am pleased to have the support of my government as well as the Competition Bureau on this matter.

[James Rajotte, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to commend my colleague for introducing this bill and for taking such an active interest in competition law. As he mentioned, his own government is supporting this so I expect we will see the bill become law fairly soon.

I do want to raise some concerns about this piece of legislation, because we in the Alliance and I in particular have decided after reflection not to support this particular bill.

I want to begin my talk here today with a few thoughts on economics, efficiencies and the distribution of wealth. The purpose of the Competition Act, whether we like it or not, is to create wealth. Obviously society would like to have some checks and balances on wealth and wealth distribution, but largely we depend on the market to regulate itself. What makes this subject complicated is that it raises the issue of distribution of wealth. The interesting thing about this bill is that it would set in motion a new purpose for the competition commissioner, that is, to make decisions about wealth distribution.

The issue of wealth distribution or dividing up pieces of the pie is inherently a political question. Who deserves more? Who deserves less? Who does the distributing? Surely these are issues for elected and accountable representatives, not civil servants or quasi-judicial tribunals. The other thorny issue with wealth distribution is that once we begin to consider it, efficiencies are cast aside. If we think of all the time and effort that goes into redistribution in government, if we look at some of the regional development agencies, and if we look at Technology Partnerships Canada, the politicians basically focus on who gets the money, not on keeping the underpinning or the economy healthy to balance that.

Others will give their interpretation of the bill and now I will give mine.

Under the Competition Act, the competition commissioner has the ability to challenge mergers that likely would lessen or prevent competition. The parties to the merger can defend their merger based upon what presently is called the efficiency defence. Such a defence can be made where the merger is likely to bring about gains and market efficiency that will be greater than, and therefore offsetting, the supposed anti-competitive effects of the merger.

Why is this technical economic theory an issue? Mainly because of one prominent case. When Superior Propane proposed a merger with ICG in 1998, it was found that the new company likely would achieve a national market share in propane of 70%. This would have enabled it to become virtually a monopoly propane provider in 16 local markets, mostly in Atlantic Canada. The Competition Bureau deemed this merger to be anti-competitive and therefore challenged it.

Superior and ICG defended their merger using the efficiency defence. The efficiency defence is technical and cumbersome. It falls under section 96 of the Competition Act. It assesses the social benefits of a merger: whether or not a marginally higher price passed on to the consumer outweighs the market efficiencies gained by the creation of a new company.

In the end, the Superior-ICG merger was allowed because the efficiencies resulting from the merger increased the competitiveness of Canadian propane by reducing duplication and allowing the firm to engage in more efficient production. In other words, the increase in productivity resulting from the merger was seen to outweigh the possible costs to the consumer; the costs were not known for certain. They actually did come up with a number for this case. It was found that the impact on low income Canadians possibly could be as high as $8.6 million. The benefit of the merger, from greater efficiencies of scale and other positive impacts, was found to be $29 million.

Bill C-249 attempts to clarify the efficiency defence by limiting the application of this efficiency defence. However, the sponsor of Bill C-249, the member who just spoke, has just explained that he has amended his own bill, something that does not typically happen. He sought to amend it because he thought it would be much better than the current form.

Either in its original form or amended as it is, we in the Canadian Alliance simply cannot support Bill C-249. There are several reasons why we cannot support the bill, which I would like to outline.

First, throughout hearings over the past three years on the issue of competition, the Canadian Alliance members of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology consistently have put forth the view that Canadian consumers and producers are best served not by a tribunal or by government intervention in the marketplace, but by genuine business to business competition.

The focus of competition policy should not be to protect individuals or individual companies but to facilitate competition itself. Therefore, another intervention into the marketplace as outlined by both the bill and the amendment would not necessarily promote competition but could allow for ways for government bodies to interfere with competition.

Second, the industry committee recommended in April 2002 that a task force of experts be established to study the role of efficiencies in the Competition Act. One of the reasons the standing committee made this recommendation was that the efficiency defence has caused a problem within the Competition Bureau itself. Just when the tribunal came to agree with the bureau's guidelines on the treatment of efficiencies according to the total surplus standard, the bureau abandoned its guidelines.

The standing committee also heard from witnesses concerning the problems in accurately calculating efficiencies. Obviously there are not too many members of the House who are experts in econometrics, but this is something where we are looking into the future of efficiencies and predicting. Even those people who are experts in this area have a difficult time doing this.

I would note here that the Competition Bureau commissioned and received a comprehensive study by experts on the treatment of efficiencies in merger reviews. However, that was a study on different international jurisdictions, where the standing committee requested a study of the role that efficiencies should play in all civilly reviewable sections of the Competition Act. In our view, this is a subtle but critically important difference.

Another reason why the committee would like to have this issue studied on a broader level is historical. To quote from the Canadian Bar Association when it appeared before our committee:

It's our understanding that the inclusion of section 96 in the package of amendments to the law enacted in 1986 was a response in part to concerns which had been raised by the business community about the then new merger provisions. It is particularly important to modify [the efficiency defence] only after due reflection has been given and an opportunity for broader public discussion. There is a constituency out there that thinks that was part of an understanding about how the act would have been amended.

The third reason why we in the Alliance cannot support the bill has to do again with interference in the marketplace by government, specifically for the purpose of what it calls wealth distribution. No matter how one looks at the bill or the amendment, it will change competition law by asking the Competition Bureau to play a role in wealth distribution. This is a role for which it is ill suited. There are other mechanisms, for example a taxation system, that are better suited to wealth and income distribution. The intent of the amendment is consistent with the intent of the original bill where the sponsor wanted “gains in efficiency to be passed onto customers within a reasonable time in the form of lower prices”.

We in the Canadian Alliance believe the marketplace can sort out these issues better than any formula proposed by Parliament.

Section 96 is designed, in theory, to help Canada create a more productive economy. To quote the Canadian Chamber of Commerce:

Unlike the United States anti-trust laws which aim to directly protect and benefit consumers, our [Competition Act] seeks to ensure that marketplace frameworks are in place to promote competition and the efficient operation of markets. This in turn will lead to benefits for all segments of society.

In conclusion, in our view Canadian consumers are best served not by a tribunal or by government intervention in the marketplace but by genuine business to business competition. The focus of competition policy should not be to protect individuals or individual companies but to facilitate competition itself. The Minister of Industry should recognize business to business competition as one of this government's highest priorities and the Liberals should make a concerted effort to reduce regulation and government interference in the marketplace.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to say at the outset that the Bloc Quebecois will support Bill C-249. I remind the House that this bill would amend the Competition Act to clarify the Competition Tribunal's powers to make an order or not in the case of a merger when gains in efficiency are expected or when the merger would create or strenghten a dominant market position.

I think that it is important, to be able to assess the changes proposed by this bill, to keep in mind the current text of subsection 96(1) of the Competition Act. It says something like this:

The Tribunal shall not make an order under section 92—

The purpose of this section is to dispose of assets or any other measure.

—if it finds that the merger or proposed merger in respect of which the application is made has brought about or is likely to bring about gains in efficiency that will be greater than, and will offset, the effects of any prevention or lessening of competition that will result or is likely to result from the merger or proposed merger and that the gains in efficiency would not likely be attained if the order were made.

In the current act, we see that if the parties before the tribunal are able to demonstrate that the merger would have the effect of creating gains in efficiency that would be greater than the gains which would result from a lessening of competition, the tribunal cannot require dissolution of a merger, even in the case of very significant adverse effects on competition. That is the section as it now reads, and we see that there is not much leeway regarding the evidence related to gains in efficiency.

In the proposed amendment—I shall read just a little of it—in order to determine whether section 92 applies:

—the Tribunal may, together with the factors that may be considered by the Tribunal under section 93, have regard to whether the merger or proposed merger has brought about or is likely to bring about gains in efficiency that will provide benefits to consumers, including competitive prices or product choices, and that would not likely be attained in the absence of the merger or proposed merger.

We see that in the amendment proposed in Bill C-249, the Competition Tribunal is being asked to evaluate whether a merger might have the effect of bringing about gains in efficiency that would benefit consumers, and then to decide whether or not to make an order under section 92.

The spirit of the bill is to identify who will benefit from these gains in efficiency. The Competition Tribunal is being given much more specific guidelines than under the current section of the Competition Act. Already, there is a difference.

There are four positive elements in Bill C-249. First, the bill lessens the importance, as determined by the Competition Bureau, of gains in efficiency attained through mergers. The bill places limits on the use of the efficiency defence that is allowed under the current wording. It is limited to gains in efficiency that benefit consumers and not solely shareholders or foreign consumers.

In the Superior Propane case, the company had, in relation to a merger, pleaded gains in efficiency without specifying for whom. When the committee met, my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques asked Thomas Ross, of the Competition Bureau, if passing Bill C-249 would have allowed the tribunal to make a better determination in the case. In the end, the bureau decided not to appeal the Competition Tribunal's decision, even though it felt that there were numerous negative impacts from the proposed merger. Mr. Ross responded that, in fact, if Bill C-249 had existed, they would have been better able to set limits and perhaps prevent this merger as the gains in efficiency, while they do exist, apparently will not benefit consumers.

So, the first advantage of this legislation is that it lessens the importance of gains in efficiency and also lessens the defence allowed under the interpretation of the current section.

Second, and clearly specified in the bill, is that what is used to judge whether a merger is acceptable is not all pertinent factors, but specifically that gains in efficiency must provide clear benefits to Canadian and Quebec consumers, not just any consumers. The previous speaker said that the Competition Act is primary aimed at creating wealth. It seems to me that the ultimate purpose of the Competition Act must be not to create wealth but to ensure that consumers have access to a variety of quality products at a competitive price.

It seems to me that this element introduced by Bill C-249 comes far closer to the primary purpose of the Competition Act. It is therefore the second argument, we feel, in favour of passing Bill C-249.

The third is that it strikes a better balance between the interests of consumers and of shareholders when a merger is planned. This is not the case with the present provision, there will be checks to see who will benefit from the gains in efficiency. This is, of course, an exercise that will be extremely difficult, but one that is necessary.

As you probably know Madam Speaker, I am a member of the Standing Committee on Finance. We just tabled a report on bank mergers. Underlying all the recommendations made to the Minister of Finance in that report is the idea that bank mergers, through the development of international activities, can certainly serve the interests of shareholders; however, as members of Parliament and representatives of the people, we must ensure that Canadian and Quebec investors and communities also benefit from these mergers. We all know that, although they are private businesses, banks provide services of a quasi-public nature. For example, the accounts in these banks will have to remain accessible.

In our recommendations, we ask the government and the Competition Bureau, during its review, to make sure that the improved efficiency and economies of scale benefit not only shareholders, but also consumers, communities and investors, and especially small and medium-size businesses.

It seems to me that if Bill C-249 were passed, it would reflect all of the concerns of the Standing Committee on Finance regarding bank mergers. We know that this will be an extremely hot topic. I do not expect that it will be dealt with before the end of the Liberal leadership race, because this would obviously be an extremely sensitive issue for the candidates. However, we know that once the race is over, and maybe after the next federal election—let us not fool ourselves—bank mergers will be proposed.

It is in everyone's best interest that Bill C-249 be passed to set guidelines for the Competition Bureau when it comes to proposed bank mergers. That was the third argument.

The fourth and final argument is that the Competition Act, as amended by Bill C-249, would better reflect the objectives of public policy. What is the purpose of legislation? It is there to serve the public interest, not private interests, and to defend the majority of citizens. In the present case, it seems to me that Bill C-249 would make for public policy that better reflects the objectives it is meant to fulfill.

In conclusion, I will say, as I said earlier, that the Competition Act is aimed at thwarting a common tendency in our capitalistic markets. In terms of the concentration of activities resulting in oligopolies or monopolies, we have laws to regulate monopolies and the situation regarding oligopolies is being monitored. As we know, there has been a lot of debate around oil companies and refining costs. But why do we have laws? Because we know that the concentration of businesses affects productivity. At the end of the day, when there are no more competitors, there is no need to be productive. That in turn affects the quality of both services and products. It also affects prices and economic growth.

Competition serves not only consumers but also economic growth and, in that sense, Bill C-249 must be passed. As I mentioned at the very beginning, the Bloc Quebecois will support the bill.

In conclusion, I too wish a happy Mother's Day to every mother in Quebec and Canada.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-249, an act to amend the Competition Act. I want to congratulate the member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge for his diligent work in bringing this particular private member's bill forward.

Bill C-249 is about the balance of power between companies and consumers, big people and little people. It seeks to amend the Competition Act to clarify the powers of the competition tribunal when making orders in the case of a merger that would, if approved, create a monopoly or near monopoly situation at the expense and detriment of consumers and competition in the marketplace.

The bill would have the effect of giving the competition tribunal more flexibility in approving or disapproving mergers. It is the opinion of the member who put the bill forward that section 96 of the current Competition Act is outdated and needs to be amended to protect consumers against mergers that would allow monopolies or near monopolies with all of the negative consequences that flow from that.

We in the Prairies know a little something about monopoly or near monopoly situations because prairie history is rife with protests that have occurred as a result of the stranglehold that the big railroads and grain companies have had, at present and in the past, over our farming communities and other primary shippers. That is why I was particularly intrigued to hear the member from the Alliance talking against this bill. The Alliance purports to speak for western Canadians, but is sadly out of touch on this particular piece of legislation.

That near monopoly on the Prairies still applies to a great extent and our farmers continue to pay the price. They are seeing freight rates on grain rise dramatically, whether it is grain companies, equipment manufacturers, the people who produce tractors, combines and sprayers, et cetera, or the commercial fertilizer companies. These situations have arisen mainly because Ottawa has walked away from its responsibility to regulate these near monopolies in the public interest.

Recently, our smaller cities have also suffered as a result of the merger of Air Canada and Canadian. In that transaction Air Canada argued that it would make the airline industry more efficient. However, the question always remains, efficient for whom, for the company or for the passengers and consumers the company is supposed to be serving?

In the 36th Parliament we had to deal with the threat of mergers among the big banks that claimed this would create new efficiencies. Sadly, that issue may not be very far away from being back in the House again. The question remains, efficient for whom, the bank or the elderly pensioner whose local branch is closing; the bank or the teller who loses his or her job? Our party and caucus was in the forefront of the campaign, including my colleague from Regina—Qu'Appelle, against bank mergers, and it was a campaign that succeeded, at least temporarily.

I wish to point out to the member proposing Bill C-249 that I do not see in his literature or testimony before committee any reference to workers. He talks about consumers, and rightly so, but every large merger almost inevitably means lost jobs and that has a negative effect on individuals, families and communities.

Bill C-249 has been before the industry, science and technology committee. One of the witnesses who appeared before that committee on this bill was Konrad von Finckenstein, the Commissioner of Competition. The commissioner said in testimony that he believed the bill before us today was, “a workable alternative to the status quo”. I interpret this to mean that the competition commissioner thinks that the current bill is too merger friendly and that he would welcome an opportunity to modernize the legislation around the Competition Act.

Obviously he believes that Bill C-249 would be helpful in that regard because it would ensure that consumers and not just companies must benefit from any gains and efficiencies being predicted due to business mergers.

There is no unanimity in the business sector. I note that the Canadian Federation of Independent Business does support the bill, while the Canadian Chamber of Commerce does not. That again may speak to market solutions and the Canadian Alliance refusing to support this bill.

I suspect that the Canadian Federation of Independent Business is opposed to this because it speaks for smaller businesses likely to be harmed by big business mergers, while the chamber speaks mainly for big business in Canada.

In summary, I believe Bill C-249 would improve the Competition Act by protecting people against the most cynical and voracious business mergers. I am happy to support the legislation.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments that have been made and I extend to all my colleagues my sincere congratulations and gratitude for the work they have done on this.

We know that legislation is often imperfect but we do try, as a Parliament, from time to time to change the directions in terms of the support that exists for this bill. I am pleased to say that it is worth the challenge that will be presented by the House at an appropriate time. It is my hope that we can pass this bill as soon as possible so that the dangerous precedent that has been set in the status quo is not used at any time soon. I think that would be responsible.

I point out to my hon. colleague from the New Democratic Party that this would be as important for consumers as it is for workers. It is an important bill for Canadians and certainly speaks loudly to the point that members of Parliament can and do become involved in issues with which the government normally does not have an opportunity to involve itself. The private member's process does indeed work.

[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 the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.