Debates of Oct. 14th, 2004

Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to respond to the member's concern and would ask him a question. On what basis does he know that individuals pose a threat to public security?

It does not make me feel better. It makes me feel a lot worse to know that there are secret processes underway in our country that can put people on a list for what reason it would never be known to them. They would be denied the right to fly or to go across a border or other liberties would be taken away without their ever knowing what it is that they are suspected of.

It is a fundamental law of justice that if someone poses a public risk or a security risk, then bring forward the evidence and engage in a judicial process. We all support the idea of needing security but we have to seriously question and examine how far down the road we have gone with the various pieces of legislation we have, and what I understand to be proposals by Transport Canada to have this no fly list. How far down the road have we gone of actually removing people's basic human rights?

It is one thing to say that someone poses a public threat, but if there is no information or evidence to show that the person does or does not, then I would question what kind of society we are moving toward where we would place someone on the list and remove that person's rights without bringing that evidence forward. Apparently that is where we seem to be headed.

This new department that is being created will have responsibility for some of these agencies. I frankly think that should be of concern to us. We should not be willing to blindly accept on the basis of a secret security process that we know nothing about, that any individual can basically have their rights removed. I am surprised that the member would somehow accept that.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I for one am very pleased that my colleague from Vancouver East has raised her concerns about what may or may not be a worry with respect to this particular legislation.

It is absolutely incumbent upon every single one of us to heed the warnings about how, in the absence of due process, the absence of transparency and accountability, the suspension of the presumption of innocence, all of these things, we need to be extremely concerned about where we are headed.

I am sure the member from Vancouver East is aware that prophetic words were spoken by an Afro-American congresswoman in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 when she said that in the attempt to defeat terrorism, let us not become the evil we deplore. That is why I think we need to proceed with extreme caution.

One cannot oppose the principle of better cooperation among the agencies, particularly in the instance where public safety is threatened or where public security is at risk. However the issue is what are the checks and balances and what kind of accountability is there.

In the absence of it being clear exactly what some of these processes will be, it is necessary to have more information about what the intent is, and not just the intent. We also need to know how the important due process of law that needs to apply is going to be maintained and in fact strengthened, given the concerns we have about the suspension or the weakening of due process in far too many cases of late. I would ask the member for Vancouver East for her comments.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member has expressed a concern that is shared by more and more people about the lack of due process. I can certainly reiterate that in looking at the bill, we have to scrutinize and examine what processes are in place. We have to examine whether or not through the bill there will actually be an improvement in terms of transparency and accountability.

We are talking about agencies that have very broad powers. If through the creation of this new department we end up with a situation where it becomes an enclave of government that becomes mysterious, secretive, with closed doors and it is all shrouded in security and emergency preparedness, we should have a major concern.

The bill presents an opportunity with the creation of the department to actually improve processes to ensure that people's rights are not violated. It provides an opportunity to ensure that there is accountability to the minister within the department but also to the public and ultimately to the Canadian people.

The bill provides a danger to further entrench some of the problems that I outlined in my comments. That is why the NDP looks at the bill with the idea that there are some very good aspects to it, but also with some skepticism. We need to examine it from the point of view of the public interest and the public good in terms of making sure that security does not become a coverall for actually violating people's basic rights.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, I was remiss earlier in not congratulating you in your new role.

I understand the member's concern about oversight. I wonder if she is aware of the oversight bodies that are already in existence. Just to remind the House, there is the office of the inspector general for CSIS; the office of the correctional investigator; the RCMP external review committee; the commission for public complaints against the RCMP, which reviews complaints against that organization; and the security intelligence review committee, which reviews the activities of CSIS.

There is a parliamentary committee looking at some other aspects of oversight. I wonder if the member for Vancouver East could acknowledge that these oversight bodies exist and if she thinks they are doing an adequate job.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly will acknowledge they exist. There are three independent review bodies for those agencies I listed and two statutory review bodies for CSIS. But let me ask why we had to get to the point of a public inquiry with Maher Arar. Those review bodies existed during the time that whole case developed. It took enormous public pressure to finally convince the government to hold a public inquiry.

Yes, those bodies exist. In theory, they have a mandate to provide oversight and review, but one has to wonder how on earth we got to the situation with Maher Arar, because they certainly did not protect his rights and now we have a public inquiry to investigate what the heck went wrong.

[Dave Chatters, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Mr. Speaker, since this is my first opportunity to stand in the House in the new 38th Parliament, I would like to take the opportunity, as so many others have, to thank my constituents for sending me back here. As a matter of fact, I would like to thank the constituents in my new riding, now Battle River but soon to be Westlock--St. Paul again, for having confidence in me. Of course I thank the constituents of Athabasca for the many years I represented their riding and for their support for me. It is quite humbling to be shown that kind of confidence and to be sent back for a fourth time.

I am also pleased to be able to join this debate on Bill C-6. I have certainly been listening to the debate on the bill as it has gone on this afternoon. It was interesting to hear the exchange we just heard a few moments ago about the oversight agencies, because that really is one of my greatest concerns about the bill as well.

Certainly my party recognizes the need for this agency and supports the creation of this agency and will support the bill. But that does not really mean that we believe it is the answer to all the problems or, for that matter, that we have any confidence in this Liberal government to implement the bill and act on it.

Considering the amount of time this agency has existed and the fact that the minister has been responsible for it for 10 months, we have seen relatively little action on this file. We had the photo op today with the secretary of homeland security and all of those nice things that the parliamentary secretary talked about, but the fact is that trucks are still sitting for four hours at the border and delays are extraordinary. It has been three years since 9/11 created both this new world we live in and the need for this security agency. I think one would have to be pretty forgiving to think that now the Liberal government is ready to act on these issues, to implement this act and to move forward with some urgency on this issue, because it never has been before.

I recognize that the minister says she has been very busy in the last 10 months consulting, communicating and gathering information and she cannot talk about these things because they are a matter of public security. There is probably some fact to that. But I think that because of that very fact this agency in good measure will operate in secrecy, which I recognize the need for, there needs to be some real oversight of this department and some real evaluation of the effectiveness of this department and how it is working.

Certainly one of the first mandates this department has is to streamline communications between the different security agencies. That is a laudable goal, because if there has been one obvious failure in North American security since 9/11 or leading up to 9/11, it has been identified as the lack of communication between the various security agencies. Had we had that communication and cooperation between those agencies, in fact, we might have avoided 9/11 and some of the other terrorist incidents that have happened. That has been the breakdown.

The parliamentary secretary referred to the number of agencies that would provide oversight to the various security agencies. Among them, I think he mentioned the RCMP public complaints commission. If the member has ever directed a constituent to the RCMP public complaints commission with an issue, he has to know how ineffective that organization is. It simply turns around and sends the complaint back to the RCMP detachment where it came from for an internal investigation. That hardly gives me confidence that somebody independent is looking at the issue and going to review, evaluate and rule on it. I very much suspect the other oversight agencies are not much stronger than that.

On this particular bill we need a far stronger oversight just in view of the criticisms we have heard, not only from our own Auditor General but from agencies in the United States since 9/11. Canada has had criticisms pointed at it for its apparent willingness to harbour terrorists, for dragging its feet on outlawing terrorist organizations and in dealing with those organizations.

When the current Prime Minister was finance minister he even attended a fundraising dinner for a terrorist organization, and to this day probably still denies that, but I think it is generally accepted that the organization was the Tamil tigers.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

I am sorry to interrupt the member for Battle River but I can inform him that he will have 14 minutes remaining in debate the next time the bill is before the House.

It being 6:30 p.m., pursuant to the order made Tuesday, October 5, 2004, the House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:30 p.m.)