Debates of Nov. 16th, 2004

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-6, an act to establish the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and to amend or repeal certain acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

There is one motion in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-6. Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted upon.

I shall now put Motion No. 1 to the House.

[Jean Lapierre, Liberal, for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

moved:

That Bill C-6, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing lines 18 to 20 on page 2 with the following:

“performing his or her duties and functions, the Minister may”

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak in support of Bill C-6, an act to establish the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and to amend or repeal certain acts.

I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of this proposed legislation which will enshrine in law the departmental structure announced last December and further solidify the working relationships that were put in place at that time. This is an important debate and one that will be watched closely by Canadians. It will show the degree to which hon. members on all sides of the House are committed to strengthening the safety and security of our citizens and our country.

If hon. members want a more strategic and effective approach to safety and security issues, if they want a more coherent and robust structure for public safety, and if they want increased collaboration within and between governments in Canada and with our allies abroad, then their only responsible choice will be to support this proposed legislation. I believe my hon. colleagues do endorse these goals. They are in the best interests of all Canadians and Bill C-6 provides the legislative framework to facilitate their achievement.

I do not need to remind the members of the House that we live in an increasingly interconnected, complex, and often dangerous world, a time when new threats have emerged and old conflicts find new expression, and a time when the responsibility to protect the security of Canadians has never been more compelling or the array of dangers more diverse.

Technology has given terrorists new reach and new weapons. The horrific events of September 11 and the bombings of commuter trains in Madrid in March of this year reminded us all that terrorism knows no boundaries nor respects any life.

And as one of the countries named specifically by Osama bin Laden, Canada is well aware of the dangers we face.

Canadians expect their government to take concrete action to show that we take these threats seriously. They expect their government to implement a comprehensive cost cutting approach that brings together governments, security and intelligence, law enforcement, and other stakeholders in the most efficient way possible.

Canadians want us to work in sync, not in silos, to coordinate more effectively and work more efficiently. Quite simply, in the face of new realities, Canadians expect us to work in new ways, across jurisdictions, across disciplines and across borders. And that is exactly what the government proposes with the bill that is before us today.

Allow me now to express appreciation for the Chair and members of the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. In recent weeks, the committee held in-depth discussions on Bill C-6—discussions that enriched our appreciation for issues pertaining to public safety and emergency preparedness.

It was clear that members on all sides of the House shared a deep and abiding concern for the safety and security of this country and its citizens. Although the government did not always agree with all the comments and proposed amendments, we respected that committee members were trying to make the legislation the best it could be.

In that same spirit, I rise in the House today at report stage of Bill C-6 with a key amendment. The amendment concerns clause 6 which explains the functions of the minister. Specifically, the government moves to amend clause 6 by replacing lines 18 to 20 with the following wording “performing his or her duties and functions, the Minister may”. The effect of the amendment is to remove additional wording put it in a Bloc amendment at committee stage that added the words “and with due regard to the powers conferred on the provinces and territories”. The government opposes the Bloc motion to include this additional wording and we do so on several important grounds.

First, the public safety file is one on which there has been a strong history of cooperation between the federal government and the provinces. In fact, Bill C-6 contains a provision expressly calling for continued cooperation between the two levels of government. The Government of Canada fully understands that respect for provincial jurisdiction is a fundamental principle of our Constitution. It goes without saying that the Minister of Public Safety will continue to respect provincial jurisdiction in the exercise of her powers. Removing the wording added by the Bloc in no way affects or diminishes the minister's responsibility to respect constitutional divisions of powers and authorities. In fact, it reinforces it.

Second, clause 4(1) of Bill C-6 already sets that out. It states that:

The powers, duties and functions of the Minister extend to and include all matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction...

In fact, clause 4(1) uses the standard formula for departmental statutes to provide that the powers, duties and functions of the minister can only be exercised within the bounds of federal jurisdiction. The current wording actually undermines rather than reinforces the constitutional presumption that Parliament and provincial legislatures will act within their jurisdiction and that their respective delegates will act within the bounds of the law.

At best, the amendment is unnecessary. At worst, it introduces ambiguity. There is a presumption of statutory interpretation that words in a statute are intended to mean something. Either the amendment restates the obligation of the minister to respect the Constitution, in which case it is unnecessary, or the amendment could be read by the courts as signifying a change from the existing administrative or constitutional requirements governing the exercise of the minister's powers, which is ambiguous and unacceptable.

My final point is that the Bloc amendment sets a precedent and could call into question the interpretation of other statutes that do not contain such a provision. Removing the wording provided through the Bloc amendment will ensure the legislation conforms to accepted legislative drafting and avoids the serious concerns I have just described.

There could be no doubt that we must create a department of public safety and emergency preparedness. Our world, with its vast range of natural and man-made threats, demands a strategic and effective response to protect the safety and security of Canadians. In times of crisis, Canadians want seamless cooperation across governments that hold the safety and security of our citizens as our guiding principle and most profound responsibility.

The proposed legislation provides the necessary legal foundation for the department. It is my hope that in the interests of all Canadians it will receive the full support of all members of the House.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to participate in this debate. I am also pleased to see you in the chair.

Bill C-6 has been described many times as a bill of a housekeeping nature. For all intents and purposes, the new department of public safety and emergency preparedness has been operating for over six months. True to form, the Liberal government has been somewhat slow in bringing about the enabling legislation, although it was very quick to begin acting in such a way and having the department empowered, which this legislation would do, has not prevented it from making a number of important and serious decisions that flow from the department itself.

The parliamentary secretary to the minister just said that although the amendment by the Bloc is redundant and harmless he argues at the same time that it would set some sort of precedent.

We in the Conservative Party do not agree with that assessment. I do not see this as precedent setting. This is a new legislation that would enable this new department. Therefore it is not setting a precedent in such a way.

I totally disagree with the idea that giving clarity to provinces and territories over their jurisdiction is somehow repugnant or will cause ambiguity. In fact, putting in writing the commitment that those provincial and territorial jurisdictions will be respected is exactly the type of thing that I believe those jurisdictions are looking for.

One only has to recall what happened as recently as yesterday where the Prime Minister reneged on a commitment to the provinces of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland to know there is a little paranoia when it comes to the government's word and commitment to regions. Therefore I strongly believe that the Bloc amendment is extremely justified.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

We have a lot of chirping coming from the hon. member from Newfoundland because he knows full well that he broke his word to his province. His word was not consistent at all with what he said during the election to garner votes. I think the people of his home province will see that and will recognize it the next time. While the hon. member opposite continues to chirp away, we know and the people of his province know full well that his word does not really amount to a pound of salt herring.

The Conservative Party supports the legislation. We support the principle behind setting up this new department, which we did 10 years ago. Ironically, as members of the day will recall, the Liberal Party in opposition adamantly opposed bringing together a department similar to what we see in the United States and what it refers to as its homeland security.

The amendment put forward by the Conservative Party, which was accepted at the committee and forms part of the new legislation, was proposed in essence because there was ambiguity in the original legislation. It talked about entities in an open-ended way as opposed to simply listing them as they appear in other parts of the bill. Those entities include the RCMP, CSIS, the Canada Border Services Agency, the Canada Firearms Centre, which I will come back to, the Correctional Service of Canada and the National Parole Board.

The reason for the amendment is that we want to see those departments named in the bill so that we are able to track some of these entities, in particular, the Canada Firearms Centre. The Canada Firearms Centre was initially in the Department of Justice. It was then moved to the Solicitor General's department. It is now into this new entity called public safety and emergency preparedness.

We want to draw attention to the fact that we are keeping a very close eye, particularly on the budget and spending allotments as they pertain to the Canada Firearms Centre. We have concerns over the funding and over the way in which it is operating.

I would submit that one of the biggest frauds ever perpetrated on an unsuspecting public has occurred when it comes to the Canada Firearms Centre. What was supposed to be a $2 million allotment has turned into an expenditure of the public purse now approaching $2 billion. No one has yet been able to adequately set out the case that this is justified in the way of protecting the public.

We have seen effort after effort by the government, new computer systems, new software, new locations, efforts that have been made in particular on the public relations side as opposed to the effective public protection side, which is what we oppose. This is not about gun control. The Conservative Party has a long record of supporting gun control, supporting public protection, supporting the police and supporting our security forces. What this is about is a public relations exercise.

I want to draw attention to a recent example in which the Canada Firearms Centre announced that it intends to spend no new money, zero new funds, on gun safety education in the next year but that it plans to dish out approximately $3 million for a public relations exercise and a communications strategy. This was confirmed by the centre itself.

Yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister said that the main goal of the program was public safety and yet the supporting documentation around the expenditures over the next year show zero money allotted for public safety. One would wonder why we want to see in writing, clearly set out in the bill, the expenditures and efforts made to continue this fiasco called the long gun registration.

We support the bill. We support the effort to share information. We support every effort to give our policing and security forces the necessary resources and support from government. What we do not support is a further shell game and act of deception on the part of the government in terms of keeping this ill-fated boondoggle of a registry alive.

I want to return to the amendment made by my colleague, the Bloc member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin. This similarly puts forward an amendment that would put in writing within the bill that there will be no intrusion on provincial jurisdiction. The government is now trying to change back to its original form of what happened at the committee.

There was support from other parties on that particular amendment and the amendment itself is one that simply adds a degree of certainty to the protection of provincial and territorial jurisdiction. We supported that effort then and we continue to support it. We do not believe it is binding in terms of future legislation and we do not believe it is precedent setting.

The Department of the Solicitor General, the Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness and the National Crime Prevention Centre are well established within the legislation. The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness is responsible for those entities.

One of the great ironies that I found in reviewing the legislation and seeing the word “entities” is that in Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism legislation, when the word “entities” is used in that context in that bill what they are talking about is terrorist activities referred to as entities. Here we have another bill where we are talking about anti-terrorism and Canadian national security forces that are similarly referred to as entities. I see that as a glaring contradiction.

It is important that we have this coordinated effort to form a strategy and to put forward adequate support and resources in the fight against global terrorism and threats in North America. I agree with the comments of the parliamentary secretary about the importance of a coordinated and diligent effort in that regard.

Recently the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, also known as FINTRAC, reported that three years after the crackdown on terror financing, those who backed violent causes remain in Canada and continue to use this country as a base for bank-rolling some of the bloodshed that we see playing out around the world. Investigators found that $70 million worth of suspected terrorist financing was still taking place in Canada this year. That is more than three times the amount that was detected in 2003. We still have work to do here at home and abroad.

We also continue to have a need to bring together our ties with the United States of America and, I would suggest, Mexico, to ensure that we have very close coordinated efforts here in North America in exploring the possibility of a security perimeter.

The Conservative Party supports the legislation to enable this new department. We believe it is an important effort on behalf of the House of Commons and all Canadians.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, we certainly recognize the value of Bill C-6 as a whole and we will support it, as we did when it was first introduced in this House. However, we are here to discuss the amendment proposed by the government, through the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

I understand that there are discussions in this House, however, I am the only one at the microphone right now.

We examined this bill at committee and we realized that, as is common practice, the powers given to the minister are considerable. As this is a shared jurisdiction and as it is necessary that it be shared anyway, for reasons of efficiency, we want to make sure the federal government is aware this time that the provincial and territorial jurisdictions must be respected.

We presented our arguments to all of the members of the committee, composed of representatives of all parties in the House, and the majority of those representatives, who represent a majority of the Canadian population, also recognized that the addition we were proposing was necessary in the current context, but also in a context that probably amounts to the history of the last 40 years, that is to say the continual and systematic intrusion of the federal government in provincial jurisdictions.

The amendment that we proposed to clause 6 began as follows:

1. (1) In exercising his or her powers...the Minister may--

It all seems very innocent, but when one reads about all the powers that are given thereafter and when one sees what public security is, one notices that there are quite a few areas which belong to the provinces. For example, there are provincial prisons. There are also effective civil security organizations which—and I have noticed this—differ from one province to another. Not only are they well established, but they meet local needs. We realized that these powers were considerable. We wanted the minister, whoever he may be, to continue to exercise these considerable powers with due regard to the powers conferred on the provinces and territories. It was this wording, “with due regard to the powers conferred on the provinces and territories”, that we proposed as an amendment and that representatives of the majority of the Canadian population decided to approve.

The amendment the government is proposing now would supersede the one unanimously approved in committee. This shows how this government, which in this current legislative context does not have a majority, neither in the House nor in committee, is trying not to take the amendments proposed by the committees into account. Knowing that the government would probably want to go this way, I had asked that a second amendment be made to the last clause of the bill. This seemingly innocuous section says:

1. The provisions of this Act, other than sections 35 and 36, come into force on a day to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council.

This wording allows the government to enforce the act without taking into account any amendments approved by committees.

Indeed, government members can always say that the sentence I just read is a provision of this act:

1. (1) “--and with due regard to the powers conferred on the provinces and territories--”

Consequently, I proposed an amendment and I had the support of all the members of the committee to amend this clause to read:

1. This Act, other than sections 35 and 36, comes into force on a day to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council.

It is obvious that this was not a pointless precaution, since I presume that if the amendment it is proposing now is defeated, the government would probably try not to enforce the amendments adopted by Parliament.

Even though I suspect that several voters did not want to elect a minority government, but rather a majority government formed by the party of their choice, I would like to point out that a minority government reflects the diverse points of view found in Canadian society as a whole. Thus its stands to reason that a government which is the result of this new minority situation shows some humility and accepts the improvements proposed by those who represent the majority of Canadians.

This is clearly the case here. The federal government has a long history of interfering in areas under provincial jurisdiction. I do not have the time now to list all its intrusions, but suffice to say that today the federal government spends more money in areas under provincial jurisdiction than in its own areas of jurisdiction. As a matter of fact someone back home had fun compiling the latest federal intrusions just over the past three years and putting a dollar figure on them. The number arrived at is rather impressive: the new federal intrusions in areas under provincial jurisdiction amounted to $4.476 billion.

Here are a few examples. Health information technologies: $600 million in 2002-03. The Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment—health is an area under provincial jurisdiction—: $5 million in 2003-04, and $10 million the following year. Patient's security: $20 million over three years. Health governance and accountability: $70 million in 2002-03, $15 million the following year, $30 million the year after that, for a total of $115 million. National Immunization Strategy: $15 million. Canadian Health Services Research Foundation: $25 million. Managing pharmaceuticals: $40 million over the past two years. Planning, coordinating and partnership: $10 million in 2003-04, and $20 million in 2004-05. Health services for official language minorities: $12 million and $13 million over the last two years.

Early education and child care—clearly another matter of provincial jurisdiction—$25 million in 2003-2004, $81 million in 2004-2005, and we know what is coming next. Support to employability of the handicapped: $193 million per year in the past two years. The strategy for children and the family law—truly one of the foundations of the constitutional accord which may have existed in 1840 and later in 1867—another area where the government has found a way to intervene—$27 million in 2003-2004 and $26 million in 2004-2005. There are also the affordable housing initiatives. I could go on and on; I have 29 items and I have not even gone through half the list. I believe other speakers will have an opportunity to say more.

It is a mistake to talk about something that is useless here and to point it out in a number of acts to the federal government. Among his arguments, the government representative said that there has always been a high level of cooperation between provinces in civil security matters, and that it goes without saying that things will remain that way. If it goes without saying, why would things get worse by saying it?

I myself was very open to cooperation with the federal government when I was the Minister of Public Security in Quebec. For example, I supervised the establishment of the Carcajou squad, which had some considerable success in the fight against organized crime, especially against biker gangs. As soon as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police showed its desire to cooperate in this new type of fight against organized crime, and especially to bring together investigators with access to various sources of information, I agreed to do so.

In conclusion, I think that other speakers will have an opportunity to raise many other arguments against this amendment.

Business of the House

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, discussions have taken place between all parties regarding the course of this evening's debate in the committee of the whole of the main estimates. I believe that you would find consent for the following motion. I move:

That notwithstanding Standing Order 81(4)(a), within each 15 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 answers approximately reflect 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.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-6, an act to establish the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and to amend or repeal certain Acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee and of Motion No. 1.

Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-6 has been referred to as a housekeeping bill. I suppose that is reasonably accurate. The government has moved on this, quite a bit later than it should have given the announcement that came with regard to this type of legislation almost a year ago when the present Prime Minister became Prime Minister. It is simply an attempt on the part of the government to consolidate the functioning of our security forces, the work that we do both nationally and internationally with regard to the security of our citizenry.

As we have heard, all parties are in support of this legislation. In effect it is a very short bill when the amendments to other legislation are taken out. It simply consolidates a number of the agencies.

I do want to say that the provisions in the bill that were placed before the justice committee were such that it was responded to in a cooperative fashion by the committee. I believe it is an attempt by all parties to cooperate and make the minority government situation not only function but function well. I believe we went quite some distance in achieving that.

I have to say perhaps as an aside that questions remain with regard to the restructuring of our security forces, but in a spirit of cooperation those concerns were set aside by the committee to be addressed at a future date.

I will mention one of the items. There was some discussion as to whether the agencies that fall within the purview of the minister, in this case the Deputy Prime Minister, are as broad as they could be. I spent a good deal of my summer dealing with security issues, both in this country and internationally. What kept coming up was this need to have cooperation to make sure we do not create silos where we have territorial infighting and protection of our own territory, at times to the detriment of the security in the country. We heard that from our allies in the United States, England and Australia. It was a common theme.

This legislation goes some distance toward achieving that, but as I say, it does not bring in all of our security agencies. This is a question that was raised at the committee, but in a sense of cooperation we put off the question so this bill could move forward quickly and we could begin to do this coordination that everyone agreed was necessary.

The sense of cooperation was there and was acted upon. A number of amendments got proposed, two of which passed. I want to make mention of one that did not. It was not proposed by committee members but by the Privacy Commissioner.

There is no question that the Privacy Commissioner had valid concerns about the issue of privacy and in fact the security of information that is gathered by our security forces, both domestically and internationally. We have heard a great deal about the use that the Patriot Act is being put to by our American allies. This is one of the areas where we would be concerned. There was a concern expressed about the way this information is used, in particular because of the suspicions in the Arar case about it being used improperly. For that, we will wait for the outcome of Justice O'Connor's report and recommendations.

Those issues were raised. Again, in this sense and spirit of cooperation that was in the committee, we indicated to the Privacy Commissioner and to the government that we were prepared to set those concerns aside to be dealt with later, either within the scope of this legislation and bill or in other areas, but it would be a matter that we would address down the road. We felt it was simply too important to get this legislation in place so we proceeded on that basis and in fact did so expeditiously.

One of the controversial issues that is now before the House is that the government, in response to the report from the committee when this bill was reported out at report stage, has now moved this amendment. It would in effect overturn the amendment that we received from the Bloc member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, wherein he wanted to draw clear jurisdictional lines between the federal government, the provinces and the territories.

All three of the opposition parties supported that approach. We in the NDP do not believe, as was suggested by the parliamentary secretary earlier this morning, that the implications of passing this amendment do not set a permanent type of precedent. He admitted he was not a constitutional expert and he is right in that regard, if in fact he was going to take that position. The long term effect is that it will be in the bill and in the law. We have indicated that at that time, and I will repeat it now on behalf of my party, we are going to address the issue of provincial and territorial rights vis-à-vis the federal government on a file by file, bill by bill and law by law basis.

In this case, it is appropriate, because again one of the things that I think was drawn very clearly to our attention this summer as the committee did its work on public security is the amount of additional work being done in intelligence gathering and in public security, work that has traditionally been done at the federal level and by federal police agencies and services and is now being done in a cooperative fashion with the provincial and municipal police forces in the country.

We want it to be very clear that although this cooperation has been extended by those government agencies at the provincial and municipal level, we did not want to see an incursion by the federal government into what have been traditional areas of responsibility for the provinces and territories in accordance with our constitutional framework in this country.

The motion that was put forward for an amendment by the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin was appropriate. It is one that in the circumstances we supported and we continue to support now. We are clearly saying to the government we will not support it returning the bill to the state it was in when it got to committee.

I want to make one final point with regard to that. We as a party have argued that we need to expand the role of the committees in the House and the government and within our constitutional framework. It is part of the democratic deficit to which the Prime Minister is very fond of referring, but I have to say that we have to question his sincerity at a time like this when the committee clearly discussed this issue. It was a full discussion. Members listened to the opinions from all sides and said to the government that in this case the amendment was appropriate. That was a clearly democratic process. It is one that should in fact be honoured by the government, so we draw to the attention of the House the fact that the government is ignoring all of the platitudes that it has put out around democratic deficit and the need for reform when it moves this type of amendment at report stage.

The committee discussed it. The committee went through a democratic process. The committee reached a decision and has now reported that decision to the House. That should be honoured by the government and by the House.

In conclusion, I will say that we are supportive of the bill but we are going to insist that the amendments that were passed at committee be honoured by the House.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by pointing out that the Bloc Québécois is in favour of this bill. Today at report stage, it is not a question of whether or not to create a Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness but rather the unavowed yet obvious desire of the federal government to trample over areas of provincial jurisdiction.

In committee—as has just been said—we reached a decision. We might have expected this government, which loved to pay lip service to the principle of enhancing the role of MPs, to respect the work and role of those same MPs particularly in committee.

I think it is extremely idealistic wishful thinking to believe that the government was going to stick to the principles it has been making so much of in recent months. It has been claiming these principles, crossing its heart: that this democratic institution needed to have its true role and importance restored to it, that MPs needed to feel they had more of a say, more of a role. Yet, as the old saying goes, the leopard can never change his spots.

The government has found nothing better to do, during the report stage consideration of a bill that has just come back from committee, than to slough off everything that committee has done, in its usual arrogant way. “We are the ones who possess the truth. We have decided that the MPs on the committee were mistaken, that they were wrong, and so, despite the points of view they defended in committee, we are going back to the original version, the right one. We are right, so we are going to reimpose our original point of view, and who cares what members in committee may have said or thought during the committee deliberations. That is all there is to it.”

Like I said, this is the same arrogant, disrespectful, haughty, and condescending attitude the government takes towards not only the public in general, but also elected representatives in the House. What is happening here today is distressing and sad.

We had hoped the government would be true to its principles and respect the point of views of parliamentarians. But it seems that was not to be.

To go back to the substance of the debate today, we are being told we should reinstate in the bill the reference to the minister's duties and functions, that being an indirect reference to his or her constitutional responsibilities. The government does not want to spell out what it means by “duties and functions” of the minister because vagueness leaves room to manoeuvre. It is talking about the duties and functions of the minister, but we should understand here that it is referring to the constitutional duties and functions of the minister.

The parliamentary secretary did not hesitate to tell in committee, “The minister will not act in a way that is unconstitutional.” More on that later.

But I would like to quote one of the officials who appeared before the committee during the clause by clause examination of the bill. He told us:

If this sets a precedent in how this minister's powers ought to be interpreted, a court, in interpreting another minister's powers in legislation that didn't have such a reference...that would be a question that would have to be explored in terms of how you interpret statutes.

Mr. Pentney made that remark because, in his opinion, the original wording of the bill, which the government seeks to reinstate today by talking about the duties and functions of the minister, suggesting that they are constitutional duties and functions, was a much more positive way of saying things, rather than be more specific and write “with due regard to the powers conferred on theprovinces and territories”.

Consequently, according to him, we wanted to say the same thing. Curiously, a little later, he said that even if we said the same thing, the courts could interpret it differently.

So, as would say the former mayor of Gatineau, it seems that there is something fishy going on. If both formulations mean the same thing, why then are they suggesting, as Mr. Pentney clearly does, that the courts could interpret them differently? If the two formulations mean the same thing, why is the government concerned that the courts could interpret them differently? We believe there is cause for concern because the government is concerned. If the government wants to go back to the initial wording, it is surely because, as I said a moment ago, it wants to cut itself some slack.

For that matter, I would like to come back to the affirmation of the parliamentary secretary, who said the minister would not violate the Constitution. With great respect, I would say that the government violates every day its own Constitution. It infringes constantly on the powers of provinces, of Quebec and of the territories. Indeed, the Bloc has shown that 44% of the government's budgetary spending for 2002-03 was in areas of provincial and territorial jurisdiction, and not its own.

In this respect, I would like to quote one of the conclusions of the Léonard committee report. I can see the hon. member for Joliette who also worked on this committee. It was established by the Bloc Québécois to study federal government spending and the ways it accentuates the phenomenon of fiscal imbalance.

The Léonard report said that if intrusive spending is compared to truly federal spending, excluding debt servicing, the federal government now spends more in Quebec's fields of jurisdiction than in its own fields. That says a lot.

The federal government spends almost more money in other fields of jurisdiction than in its own. The results are obvious. The federal government has been withdrawing from its own jurisdictions, perhaps because it thinks they are less visible and it wants more visibility. It wants the citizens to be more aware of what it is doing, which means that it invests more in fields that affect them more directly. I think it is part of the federal government's unhealthy desire to sell itself, make itself look good and advertise itself.

Although we agree in principle with Bill C-6, the fact remains that this bill gives the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness a number of powers that infringe on those of the provinces. Therefore, it is important to make it clear in the bill that everything must be done in complete respect for provincial jurisdictions and in cooperation with the provinces and territories in order to prevent the federal government barging in and dictating its orders in fields that do not normally belong to it.

I am thinking, for example, of emergency preparedness, public health, the establishment, maintenance and administration of prisons and reformatories in each province, or of strictly local natural disasters. Certainly, when there is a disaster, federal assistance is appreciated, but it must be requested. I will close by mentioning the administration of justice.

For all these reasons, we shall oppose the government amendment before us today.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to Bill C-6, which establishes the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. It takes the old responsibilities of the Department of the Solicitor General, the Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness, and the National Crime Prevention Centre and puts them all together. The bill also provides for the reporting structure of CSIS, the RCMP, the Correctional Service of Canada, the National Parole Board, the Canada Firearms Centre, and the Canada Border Services Agency.

I would be remiss if I did not question why it took the government a year to bring this legislation forward in the House. The Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness was announced on December 12, 2003 when the new Prime Minister came in and first revealed his cabinet.

Immediately following 9/11 the United States government responded by establishing the department of homeland security, but it has taken this government a number of years to follow suit, despite recommendations to do so from many national security experts, the opposition and even former foreign affairs minister John Manley.

This new department is certainly not without precedent. A public security ministry was created by the Conservative government of Kim Campbell in 1993. Kim Campbell did so in response to the terrorist bombing of the World Trade Center. She responded very quickly following the World Trade Center bombing and came forward with the public security ministry. It was modelled after the British home office and was headed by the former Conservative member of Parliament and solicitor general Doug Lewis. The new department was mandated to coordinate all of Canada's enforcement agencies, including the RCMP, CSIS and customs and immigration.

That department, as we all know, was scrapped by Prime Minister Jean Chrétien when he came into power in 1993. Unfortunately, that was the first step the government took in dismantling much of our security and intelligence gathering agencies and resourcing them. That was a very swift first step and over the last 10 years we have seen the repercussions from that. September 11 certainly called into question the wisdom of that decision by that prime minister.

We have long recognized on this side of the House that something had to be done to stop the duplication, the lack of coordination and communication between the many different federal departments and agencies with national security responsibilities and capabilities.

In a 1996 review of national security information systems and cooperation between agencies, the Auditor General discovered a pattern of inadequate information to support front line officials who are responsible for national security. Based on the assessments and observations of the Auditor General's report, we had recommended a realignment of all those departments with intelligence and enforcement capabilities under one existing umbrella. The opposition's recommendation was further substantiated by the most recent report from the Auditor General.

In March of this year the Auditor General once again revealed that there were significant gaps and errors in national security. Ms. Fraser found that there are major deficiencies in inter-agency cooperation and out of date terrorist watch lists. In one instance she showed where there could be up to 4,500 airport employees who have “possible criminal associations warranting further investigation”.

Furthermore, her report showed that officers at border crossings are not provided with any information regarding the 25,000 Canadian passports that go missing annually.

The Auditor General found:

The government as a whole failed to adequately assess intelligence lessons learned from critical incidents such as September 11--

Ms. Fraser also noted:

Clearly, the deficiencies we've noted are serious and need to be addressed on an urgent basis.

The operative word is “urgent”. Yet we are only now seeing legislation that should have been brought in immediately following 9/11 or at the very least, last December.

In July of this year the Minister of Public Safety was provided a copy of the 9/11 commission report. The 9/11 report, which was tabled after more than 18 months of hearings, contains several references to Canada, including the fact that a Tunisian Canadian was trained to be an al-Qaeda hijacker. That is in the United States 9/11 commission report.

According to a July National Post article, the Minister of Public Safety said, “There were few revelations that will affect Canadian policy making”. How unfortunate. Let me read a couple of the recommendations that were in the United States report: tightening the border controls and fingerprinting or photographing everyone who enters from a foreign country; and the establishment of a single integrated intelligence gathering agency.

The public safety minister claims that the Canadian government has already addressed many of the concerns expressed in the United States report. I guess we will have to wait until later this month to determine whether the minister's statement is in fact accurate. I for one remain very skeptical, especially after reading an article in the Ottawa Citizen which said:

Auditor General Sheila Fraser is expected [in November] to expose serious flaws in the government's ability to handle civil disasters and threats from terrorists and organized crime in an extensive audit of security at Canada's airports, marine ports and emergency preparedness infrastructure. But officials in the Public Safety Department suggest the audit will indicate that the Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness (OCIPEP) is not adequately prepared to deal with a large-scale national disaster or terrorist attack.

I also remain very skeptical that our intelligence and security forces will be properly resourced to effectively combat terrorism and organized crime.

As I have stated in the House repeatedly over the last four years, the government's slashing and gouging of the RCMP and of CSIS since 1993 has resulted in a serious shortfall in personnel, in people working in those agencies.

On a final note, I would like to point out that it was only recently that immigration officials at the Canadian border were made members of the new Canada Border Services Agency. The Minister of Public Safety had neglected to bring this union under her purview.

Quite obviously the minister finally saw the wisdom in the immigration officials' arguments and concerns that excluded them from the new agency. She recognized finally that it posed a clear danger to the security of Canadians. These immigration workers are responsible for determining which individuals deserve extra scrutiny as they come to the border. They argued the situation meant they may not have access to the latest availability in security information.

In closing, the bill is in some ways inconsequential as far as what we see the government doing. It is giving an already formed department the authority to operate, but we have to view what we see here through the eyes of the national security. I would like to read a quote from today's National Post :

If Canadians need further evidence that their government is not taking the terrorist threat seriously, they have it now. Last month, the government quietly passed regulations relating to the Safe Third Country Agreement, a deal relating to the treatment of asylum seekers signed between Canada and the United States almost two years ago. These regulations should cause Canadians serious concern.

The agreement itself is a shocking example of irresponsibility on the part of our elected representatives.

The article goes on to mention the fear and the concern dealing with national security.

When we talk about national security, there is an old statement. Sometimes one of my children will say to my other child, “actions speak louder than words”. With this government, its inaction is deafening.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in the debate on Motion No. 1 in connection with Bill C-6.

I would like to start my speech by congratulating the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, who has demonstrated, since the beginning, an unflagging vigilance in this file. I remind you that, when the bill was introduced, while saying he was, like the Bloc Quebecois, in agreement with the principle of the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act, he immediately expressed his concerns about possible constitutional interference.

In this context, in his first speech on the issue, he announced his intention and that of the Bloc Quebecois, to clarify a number of clauses of Bill C-6, to make sure that we were talking about the same thing. In committee, he proposed an amendment to ensure that clause 6 made it clear that the minister's responsibilities would be established in accordance with the constitutional division of powers. I remind the House that relative to the minister's powers, duties and functions, the member had added the following: “performing his or her duties and functions, the Minister may—” A series of powers are listed thereafter.

This is the amendment that was tabled in committee and that was adopted by the vast majority of its members. Now the bill is back in the House and, surprise—as the hon. member for Verchères—Les Patriotes clearly illustrated—Motion No. 1 strikes the amendment adopted by the committee.

The argument put forth by the parliamentary secretary is that, in any case, the federal government is always respectful of the constitutional jurisdictions of the provinces and of Quebec. Of course, these comments cannot constitute an adequate guarantee, not only for the members of this House, but particularly for those who, like us, care about Quebec's best interests.

Also, if the federal government is indeed sincere in its desire to respect the jurisdictions of Quebec and of the provinces, what is the problem with including it in the bill? It seems to me that if there was not something else behind Motion No. 1, which strikes the amendment carried at committee, the government would agree with the committee's decision.

Unfortunately, there is something else and we know it. This was mentioned a number of times, but it is worth repeating. The reason is that, for some 40 years now, the federal government's approach has been to centralize powers in Ottawa, something which does not respect the jurisdictions of the provinces, and particularly those of Quebec.

The hon. member for Verchères—Les Patriotes alluded to the work done by the Léonard committee. I sat on that committee and I can tell the House that, while this did not come as a surprise, when we looked at the federal government's spending, we noticed that, except for the debt, most of the federal government's expenditures are in the jurisdictions of the provinces and of Quebec. Last year, the federal government spent more money in provincial jurisdictions than in its own. This illustrates the fiscal imbalance. All opposition parties agree with the Bloc Québécois that this fiscal imbalance should be corrected.

We cannot trust the nice rhetoric of the parliamentary secretary or of this government; we can only trust what will be put in writing in this bill. We think it is absolutely essential that this amendment be included in the final version of the bill.

I know that the parliamentary secretary referred to clause 4, saying that it already sets things out. Let me read that clause. It states that the “powers, duties and functions of the minister extend to and include all matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction... relating to public safety—” And clause 4 goes on. Members will understand that what that clause says is not that the powers, duties and functions of the minister can only be exercised over matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction. This is a broader, more general statement. Again, it leaves the door open to infringement by the federal government. That is why we feel it is essential that the amendment adopted by the committee, which specifies that the minister shall act “with due regard to the powers conferred on the provinces and territories”, be included in clause 6.

I also find rather ironic and amusing that this issue of respect for the jurisdictions of any government, be it the federal, provincial or Quebec government, is discussed the same day that the establishment of Social Development and Human Resources and Skills Development Canada is announced. Social matters are a provincial jurisdiction.

The federal government is creating a department of social development. Why? To better orchestrate its infringements upon areas of jurisdiction that come under the provinces and Quebec.

The status of Human Resources and Skills Development Canada is being formalized. It is no secret that education comes under the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. In Quebec, we are particularly touchy about our jurisdiction over education being respected. Like we are often reminded by the hon. member for Saint-Lambert, it is through education that culture is maintained, the culture of a nation, Quebec's culture, its psyche, as he says jokingly, and its soul.

Today, on the very day it is announcing, in its Motion No. 1, its intention to strike out the committee's amendment concerning respect for the constitutional jurisdictions of the provinces and Quebec, the federal government is also announcing the establishment of Social Development and Human Resources and Skills Development Canada.

This fits in perfectly with the Speech from the Throne. Members will recall that it contained all sorts of references to health and education, and even to the recognition of foreign credentials. The Office des professions, Quebec's professions board, comes under the jurisdiction of Quebec. It is absolutely none of the federal government's business.

It is absolutely vital that this amendment be included in the bill, especially with a Liberal government that has shown its centralizing tendencies for several decades now.

What strikes me in this case is that the federal government wants to remove this reference to the respect of provincial jurisdictions while it will not even take its responsibilities in its own jurisdictions.

Take, for example, employment insurance. How many times have the ministers and the government, the Prime Minister himself, said that they will reform employment insurance because, as everyone will agree, it no longer fulfills the purpose for which it was created? And yet nothing has changed, not after the 2000 election and not after the last one.

At the same time that this bill is being introduced, we learn that 9 RCMP detachments will be closed in Quebec, including the Joliette detachment. It is absolutely unbelievable to see how determined this government is to keep the door open to infringement upon the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces while it is unable to take its responsibilities in its own fields of jurisdiction.

I was telling you about the RCMP, the employment insurance, but we could very well refer also to the whole debate on national defence. We do not have a policy on national defence in Canada, but it would seem that the choice has already been made to take part in the American missile shield project.

There is something fundamental behind this motion, behind the debate on this amendment. Not only does it deal with respect for the constitutional jurisdictions of the provinces and of Quebec, but it urges us to ask the federal government to take its own responsibilities that it does not assume, whether it be on employment insurance—I mentioned this earlier—public safety or the national defence issue.

Thus, it is absolutely essential to include this amendment in Bill C-6. Everyone says so, everyone agrees in principle on having due regard for the jurisdictions of both levels of government. You will agree with me that, logically and honestly, there is no reason to support this Motion No. 1.

I will invite not only the opposition parties, but also the government party to seriously reflect on the possibility of voting against its own motion. Indeed, as members who spoke before me have mentioned, the government is in a minority situation. I think that, in this context, it makes sense that the government should withdraw its own motion or vote against it.

Anyway, one thing is very clear, the Bloc Québécois will be voting against this motion. We want to have in the bill a written guarantee that there will be due regard for the jurisdictions of the provinces and Quebec in particular.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise to speak in support of Bill C-6, an act to establish the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the amend or repeal certain other acts.

I know I do not need to remind the members of the House that we live in an increasingly interconnected, complex and often dangerous world. It is a time when new threats have emerged and old hatreds find new expression. It is a time when the responsibility to protect the security of Canadians has never been more compelling, or the array of dangers more diverse. It is an environment in which old planning assumptions simply no longer hold and the implausible is now plausible, where we must prepare for the unforeseen and respond to the unexpected.

Technology has given terrorists new reach and new weapons. The horrific events of September 11 and the bombings of commuter trains in Madrid in March of this year reminded us all that terrorism knows no boundaries nor respects any life. As one of the countries named specifically by Osama bin Laden, Canada is well aware of the dangers we face.

On a more personal note, I am one MP in the House who happened to have been in Washington on 9/11, in meetings in downtown Washington, when the planes crashed, an experience which drove home the need to be ever vigilant as we move forward.

While terrorism is perhaps the highest profile threat, it is by no means the only one. There is the danger posed by the growing number of failed or failing states, which can serve as a haven for both terrorists and organized crime, contributing to global instability. Indeed, organized crime is a growing problem as it develops globalized networks that support the narcotics trade, weapons smuggling, money laundering, theft including identity theft, commercial fraud and extortion, as well as migrant smuggling and trafficking in persons.

Canadians also face the danger posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, including biological and chemical agents, weapons dangerous under any circumstances, but particularly so if they were to fall into the hands of terrorists or rogue states.

We also face new threats to our critical infrastructure. During the blackout of August 2003, we were again reminded of just how dependent we have become and therefore how vulnerable we are in a world connected by computer networks.

There are also natural disasters, and many parts of our country have been hit and hit hard in recent years by ice storms, floods, forest fires and even hurricanes. Lives were lost, property was destroyed, livelihoods ruined and the work of a lifetime wiped out in a matter of hours.

Certainly with the devastating impact of the SARS virus, the avian flu and mad cow, Canadians understand how highly mobile diseases can affect our health, our communities and our economy.

However, if the list is daunting, the responsibility is clear. Canadians expect their government to act and to act in all areas on all fronts. They know the dangers we face do not fit into neat little boxes and neither should our planning. What is needed is a comprehensive, cross-cutting approach, bringing together all the key players and services in the most efficient way possible.

Canadians want us to work in sync, not in silos, to coordinate more effectively and work more efficiently. Quite simply, in the face of the new normal, the new realities, Canadians expect us to work in new ways across jurisdictions, across disciplines and across borders. That is exactly what the government is proposing through the legislation before us today.

Bill C-6 brings together in one place the core functions of security and intelligence, policing and law enforcement, corrections and crime prevention, border services facilitation and emergency preparedness. It includes what many would consider the traditional core agencies associated with public safety, such as the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service, the RCMP, Correctional Services, the Canada Firearms Centre, the National Parole Board and the Canada Border Services Agency.

As a result, we are now in a position to provide a truly integrated response to all manner of emergencies and threats to our security, whether they be health related, natural disasters or from terrorists. This is a crucial capacity. After all, whether the disaster is deliberate, as in the case of terrorist attack, or accidental, as in the case of natural catastrophes like ice storms, or simply unforeseen and unforeseeable, as in the case of hazardous spills, fires or industrial accidents, the impact on Canadians can be equally devastating. Whether an electrical grid, for example, is shut down by lightening or by sabotage, we still have people without power, streets without lights and hospitals without heat.

While the elements of this new department are many, its mandate is clear: to protect the safety of Canadians. There can be no more fundamental or important role for government than that. After all, safety and security are the very foundations for every other right of citizenship, and the essential conditions for every other freedom.

What is unique about this department, its structure and composition, is that it offers Canadians an integrated response to security that covers the entire continuum of risks, from crime in their communities, to naturally occurring disasters such as flood or fires, to threats to national security.

One of the most fundamental aspects of our quality of life is the safety of our communities. That is why it is so important to get to the root causes of crime by putting in place more effective crime prevention programs, control access to firearms, and ensure effective correction and parole policies.

The addition of the national crime prevention centre to this department is a clear recognition of the fact that if we are to increase the safety of Canadians, we need to devote the resources where they are needed most, at the community level, before problems make their way into the justice system.

Other threats to the safety of our communities also exist, including, as I mentioned a moment ago, organized crime, which remains a major problem, particularly in our larger cities. Bill C-6 would enable us to work with authorities to fight organized crime and reclaim the streets for our citizens. While all threats ultimately affect individuals, threats to national security have the capacity to seriously impair the security of Canada. A growing number of international security threats could have a direct impact on the national security of Canada. We need to have the ability to move along the continuum of danger, from local dangers to national threats. We need to understand how community based issues, such as crime, can become part of larger threats to our national security.

The legislation before us would create a department with just this kind of perspective, one that would see the bigger picture and take the longer view, one that would enable us to provide a seamless response to the dangers facing Canadians, from threats to their individual liberty to those which affect their communities and threaten the nation.

This department would have the flexibility to respond and coordinate across different categories of threats, ensuring the appropriate response at the appropriate time. Moreover, by integrating these diverse but closely related responsibilities, we would be able to identify gaps more quickly, respond more quickly and communicate more effectively.

In conclusion, for the very first time, security and intelligence, policing and enforcement, corrections and crime prevention, border services and border integrity, immigration enforcement and emergency management would be brought together under one single roof, led by one senior cabinet minister. We would have the capacity to develop a truly integrated and comprehensive approach to threats from whatever source. In a world of diverse dangers, Canadians demand no more and deserve no less. I urge all members to support this very important legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-6, an Act to establish the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and to amend or repeal certain Acts.

First, I would like to commend my colleague and seatmate from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, for all his great work on this issue. We can tell he is very experienced in this area. Under the Parti Québécois government, he was Minister of Public Safety and Minister of Justice, and he has also been in charge of other major departments.

In his great wisdom, in committee, he moved a very simple amendment, which I will read to the House. But first, as members have now realized, the Bloc Québécois is not against the creation of a Canadian Department of Public Safety. Quebec has had its own public safety department for some time now. So, we do support this initiative.

Our only concern has to do with the very relevant comment our hon. colleague made about the amendment he put forward in committee, which was agreed on by the majority of committee members. Originally, clause 6 read as follows, “In exercising his or her powers and inperforming his or her duties and functions, the minister may”. Following the change made by my hon. colleague and the committee, it now reads, “In exercising his or her powers and in performing his or her duties and functions and with due regard to the powers conferred on the provinces and territories, the minister may”.

In this major debate we are holding today I find it redundant of the Liberal MPs to tell us that this is an important bill. Indeed, it is important, which is why it was discussed at committee and why amendments were passed by most of the members. The amendments were made simply to respect provincial jurisdictions. Once again it is the Liberals who are bringing up the issue of provincial jurisdictions. They do not want provincial jurisdictions mentioned in this bill. They are trying to tell us that is because the government always respects the jurisdictions. Like my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, who was a minister in the Quebec government, I think that far too often the federal Liberal government does not respect the provincial jurisdictions.

Currently in Quebec we do not have a Parti Québécois government, but a Liberal government. Yet, for months now, we have been hearing ministers Pelletier, Reid and Séguin and Premier Charest talk repeatedly about the constant interference by the federal government in provincial jurisdictions.

That is why this amendment, as minor as it may seem, is critically important. It aims at respecting the responsibilities given under the Canadian Constitution to each province and territory. That is all this amendment is asking for.

It is once again very difficult for us in the Bloc Québécois, who defend Quebec's interests. We have never denied the fact that we are here to defend the interests of Quebeckers. That is what we are doing. My colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin is simply defending the interests of Quebeckers. In the meantime, his amendment defends the interests of the residents of all the other provinces and territories in Canada. He is calling on the federal government to respect the jurisdictions, given that this Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness comes on the heels of those created in most of the provinces and territories. That is where the problem lies.

I used to be a member a member of the Standing Committee on Transportation, just like you, Mr. Speaker. You know that in the context of the crisis that followed September 11, 2001, very significant deficiencies in Canada's security were noted. The government realized the consequences of the very irresponsible decisions it had made in the past. Let us recall the period when it withdrew the RCMP from ports and airports. This was a decision made by the federal government to save money. Well, it decided to save to the detriment on the country's security. This is a decision it made, and it realized very quickly, with the events of September 11, 2001, that it had made a mistake. It is trying to re-invest a lot of money in this area. This is why we are now seeing the creation of a Public Security Department. I can understand that, but one thing remains: the provinces already have some of those departments, Quebec, for example.

All we are want with this very simple amendment is respect. Permit me to read it again so that it be well understood: “and with due regard to the powers conferred on the provinces and territories”.

This is difficult for me. As member for d'Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, I have to live with the consequences of decisions made by the federal government, which does not give due regard to its jurisdictions. My riding includes the aboriginal territories of Kanesatake and Oka. Again, a decision was made to fix a problem. This is a mystery to no one. The reserve is going through very difficult times. That problem should have been dealt with by the federal Indian affairs department. For political reasons, not wanting to shoulder the blame for the situation, the government decided to entrust that responsibility to the province of Quebec. I would not congratulate the Minister for Public Security of Quebec, Mr. Chagnon. I would not be telling you the truth if I told you that I congratulate him. He should not have used that.

From the outset he should have told the federal government “It is your jurisdiction. You have a department of Indian affairs, and the problems of the Kanesatake Indians should be dealt with by the department of Indian affairs”.

Once again, it is a disengagement issue. This is always happening in the federal government's areas of jurisdiction. Knowing that the federal government encroaches on provincial jurisdictions and refuses to look after its own jurisdictions, it is very difficult to see it create new departments and reject in this proposed amendment that due regard be paid to provincial and territorial areas of jurisdiction. It is difficult for us because we have to live with these situations. I gave you the example of Kanesatake in my riding, but there are other striking examples.

My colleague from Joliette talked about it earlier. There is the Employment Insurance program that the government refuses to amend, even if unanimous reports have been produced by committees, including the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. Seventeen unanimous recommendations were presented. The liberal MPs supported them, but two years later, the act has still not been amended.

It took and will take the Bloc Québécois—a bill was tabled by the Bloc members yesterday—to table a bill in this House to defend the interests of Quebeckers. By so doing, we also defend the interests of Canadians from all the other provinces against the federal government's failure to act in its own area of jurisdiction.

We have understood perfectly well, and I hope those watching have as well, why the federal government does not want to change the Employment Insurance Act. It is simple: year in and year out, it can help itself to somewhere between $2.5 billion and $3 billion at the expense of the jobless, and put it into its coffers for other purposes and to the detriment of the unemployed. Some would describe this with words that cannot be said in this place, but what other terms can be applied to the act of taking someone else's money?

They still decided to change the situation and so the federal government takes resources that do not belong to it and interferes in areas not under its jurisdiction and meddles in jurisdictions where it is not expected. That is what makes the situation difficult.

That is why I again wish to speak of the wisdom shown in committee by the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, and the experience he brings with him from being a minister in the Quebec national assembly. He had the support of committee members from the other parties, with the exception of the Liberals, in saying that, with this opportunity to have a new bill to create the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, why not include a clause that would completely respect the areas of jurisdiction allocated to the provinces and territories, and that is what he introduced.

I hope that the members of all parties in this House will maintain the position they adopted in committee, and that the Liberal members will understand that we do, nevertheless, want to see this department created.

The Bloc Québécois thinks it is time a department was created, but while in favour of that, we also want to see the jurisdictions of each province and territory respected, particularly since Quebec and other provinces already have had departments of public safety and emergency preparedness in place far longer than the federal government has.We would like to see their jurisdiction respected, it is only logical.

I hope the Liberal members, including the Quebec Liberals, rise in this House to vote down this motion which, once again, is intended as a direct attack on provincial jurisdictions. A good thing my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin and the Bloc Québécois, are here to defend the interests of Quebeckers.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-6, an act to establish the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and to amend or repeal certain other acts.

As members of the House know, the legislation is part of the government's wider response to the events of September 11, 2001 and to the threatened environment at large. On that terrible September day, terror became a real and unwelcome addition to our national consciousness. All of us grasped, in a tangible way, what until then had perhaps been only understood in the abstract: that the threat of terrorism does not just exist in far away places in some far off land, but indeed is on our very doorstep. When in subsequent days Canada was specifically mentioned by Osama bin Laden as a potential target, all Canadians knew that we had to confront terror in its most fundamental and ferocious form, that we had to face the realities of a new time.

Following September 11, the Government of Canada took stock and took action. Important new security measures were introduced, including beefing up security at our airports, creating the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority and developing a comprehensive new approach to our border with the United States.

Then, on December 12, 2003, the Prime Minister introduced his new cabinet and with it a new security architecture for Canada. This new structure included the creation of a new position in the Privy Council Office: national security adviser to the Prime Minister. It also included a new committee of cabinet devoted to security, public health and emergencies, which coordinates safety and security efforts across all federal departments.

The new security architecture also included the new Canada Border Services Agency, which is responsible for customs at the Canada-U.S. border and other points of entry as well as for intelligence sharing between law enforcement partners in both countries. The new Canada Border Services Agency has also become the focal point for smart border initiatives, ensuring a border that is open to trade but closed to terror and crime.

This is so important to all border crossings, especially in my riding in the region of Niagara. Just last month the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness met with U.S. secretary of homeland security, Tom Ridge, to highlight the progress made to date on implementing the Canada-U.S. smart border action plan.

The progress is impressive and extensive. It includes the creation of two new dedicated fast lanes, one each in British Columbia and Windsor; the implementation of the Nexus U.S. air pilot program at Vancouver International Airport using biometric technology; a joint plan to engage interested parties in a discussion on commercial-free screening to enhance traffic flow at Fort Erie-Buffalo Peace Bridge; a commitment by Canada to join with the U.S. in its continued security initiative, including the deployment of Canada Border Service Agency officials to a foreign marine port by April 2005; and the signing of a letter of intent to ensure radio interoperability so that first responders and others can communicate quickly and effectively.

We also announced, on top of these measures, that the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness would work with the US Department of Homeland Security to decide which actions to take in case of national emergencies, like joint vulnerability assessments, binational intervention plans and protocols, and sharing more information regarding alerts and warnings.

A key part of the smart border action plan is related to ensuring better coordination between our two countries with respect to action on cross-border crime and terrorist activity. To that end, integrated border enforcement teams, or IBETs, have been established.

Recently, at the eighth annual Canada-U.S. Border Crime Forum, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, together with the U.S. Attorney General Ashcroft, announced a number of initiatives aimed at addressing the cross-border drug trade, firearms trafficking and improving intelligence sharing.

Among the announcements made at that time was the co-location of Canadian and American IBET officials in locations in both countries as well as the release of a border drug threat assessment, which analyzes the two-way movement of drugs across the border and identifies the best practices for joint enforcement activities. New measures were announced to halt the trafficking of firearms as well as initiatives which would help the RCMP and the Bureau of Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to trace stolen guns and match crime scene bullets to a shared data base.

As part of its overall review of Canada's security requirements, the Government of Canada has also undertaken a comprehensive review of its national security policies. This review was tabled by the Prime Minister on April 27 this year under the title “Securing an Open Society”.

This new national security policy represents a major step forward in strengthening the security environment and identifies three key national security interests that Canada must advance.

First, we must protect Canada and Canadians at home and abroad. This includes safeguarding not only the physical safety of our citizens, but also of the core values Canadians have come to rely on at home and represent to the world.

Second, we must ensure that Canada does not become a base of operations for those who do harm to our allies or ourselves.

Third, it recognizes Canada's responsibility to contribute to international security. At a time when the world is interconnected as never before, we must shoulder our share, including the sending of troops if necessary and the strengthening of international institutions that contribute to global security.

This national security policy is comprehensive in scope, recognizing the changing international landscape and positioning Canada to play a key role in global affairs. This new policy also recognizes that to be successful, it must reflect the diverse perspectives of our diverse population. That is why the government has created a Cross-Cultural Roundtable on Security to engage Canadians in an ongoing discussion of national security issues and how those issues relate to our pluralistic society. The roundtable will provide advice to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the Minister of Justice.

It is against the background of all these initiatives, all these efforts to enhance the security of Canadians that the government also announced on December 12 of last year, the creation of a new department, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, the subject of the legislation before us today. As one of the first announcements of the new government, it sent a clear message that security would be a key priority.

As hon. members have heard, this will be the focal point, the coordinating body for all our efforts to protect Canadians from any and all threats, whether such threats are to their personal or economic well-being or that of their communities. It will bring together in one place and under one minister the full range of tools necessary to provide a coordinated, integrated and effective response to the full gamut of threats from natural disasters to organized crime or acts of terrorism.

As the lynchpin of Canada's new security architecture, it plays a key role coordinating our response, ensuring efficiencies among departments and interoperability across organizations as well as facilitating joint action with other partners, whether provincial, territorial or international.

This is the right legislation, which gives the right response at the right time. It allows us to review Canada's domestic security strategy while reaffirming our determination to stay true to our values.

This legislation also gives the government the tools needed to give Canadians the security they expect.

In the face of adversity, our country has a choice. We can be fearful or we can be prepared. Bill C-6 provides our unambiguous response. We will be prepared. In passing this legislation we declare in no uncertain terms that Canada is united, not simply by danger and hazard, but in purpose and resolve. In defending and protecting ourselves, we reassert the value we attach to our freedoms and our determination to defend those freedoms whenever threatened. That is why I invite all hon. members to support this very important legislation.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure on behalf of the people of Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke that I rise today to participate in the debate regarding Bill C-6, the public safety and emergency preparedness act.

The decision to create public safety and emergency preparedness Canada is certainly something that has been called for on this side of the House. The object of trying to bring some policy cohesiveness among a variety of agencies is something we appreciate, particularly when it comes to disaster relief. In many ways what is being attempted in the legislation mirrors efforts in providing disaster flood relief to the residents of my riding who live along the Ottawa River.

First, there needs to be coordination among various government agencies. To illustrate the complexity of finding solutions to problems when a variety of government agencies at all levels are involved, I will give an example of a local disaster scenario and how the various participants are involved in the process.

A recent meeting of stakeholders was held regarding water levels on the Ottawa River. Participants agreed that the Ottawa River Regulation Planning Board, the ORRPB, and its partners, need to do a better job of communicating to the public about their respective roles.

The supervision of water levels on the Ottawa River is managed by the ORRPB. Membership consists of three federal representatives, one each from the Department of Public Works and Government Services, Environment Canada and Fisheries and Oceans, a representative from the Ministry of Natural Resources, MNR, for Ontario, someone from the Ministry of the Environment for Quebec, a representative from Ontario Power Generation and a representative from Hydro-Quebec. The costs of operating this board are shared 50% by the federal government, with Ontario and Quebec paying equal shares of 25% each.

In addition to members of ORRPB and local MNR representation, the County of Renfrew as well as the Ministry of Municipal Affairs advisor for Renfrew County and provincial MPP John Yakabuski were invited to participate in the stakeholders meeting.

Bill C-6 now puts the disaster financial assistance arrangements, DFAA, program into the ministry of public safety. One of the concerns which I have brought before the House on a previous occasion is that the DFAA program is administered in Ontario. My office has received numerous complaints, particularly in the last several years, over the management of the water levels along the Ottawa River with respect to flooding.

Back in July, I sent a request through the federal representatives on the ORRPB to hold a public meeting in Renfrew county to address some of the concerns of residents and businesses along the Ottawa River. It was my hope that some of the problems with the way emergency preparedness had been administered in the past would have been corrected with this legislation. This includes the DFAA Program.

Since its inception, DFAA claims for the province of Ontario total $124 million. That was for the ice storm where damage was in the hundreds of millions of dollars. The problem is that provincial eligible expenses are calculated on a per capita population basis. That means that on the first dollar per capita for the population of Ontario, which is 12,238,200 people, the federal share is nil. On the next $2 per capita up to 24, 476,400, the federal share is 50%. On the next $2 per capita, the federal share is 75% with the remaining provincial eligible expenses then kicking in at 90%.

Based on this formula, Ontario does not qualify for DFAA assistance at the maximum rate until all eligible expenses exceed almost $62 million. By way of contrast, the province of Prince Edward Island, based on the per capita formula, qualifies for federal assistance at the maximum rate after eligible expenses exceed only $685,000. There is a big difference between $62 million and $685,000.

Access to federal government programs should be based on need, not on geography.

In 2002, based on this unfair funding formula, flood victims who happened to live on the Quebec side of the Ottawa River were eligible for federal flood damage. Their neighbours in Ontario, who experienced the same flood conditions on the same river, received nothing. The Greenway Association at LaPasse at the time provided me with a flood damage report of $250,000, just for Lacroix Bay on the Ottawa River.

There is no doubt that if the DFAA were administered in a uniform fashion, the residents and municipalities along both sides of the Ottawa River would have qualified for some federal assistance. Once again this year, the same situation was experienced by residents in the Township of Whitewater Region, with extensive flooding of their properties along the Ottawa River.

The legislation we have before us today recognizes the role the federal government has to play when it comes to disaster relief. Rather than perpetuate this inequity, we on this side of the House are asking for fairness in the administration of federal government programs. That is how we build a nation: with fairness in government programs. I join the Federation of Canadian Municipalities in calling for a new cost sharing formula when it comes to disaster recovery.

The second point I wish to raise is the sorry history of the former Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness. In particular, I draw to the attention of the House the disgraceful actions of OCIPEP in closing down the Emergency Preparedness College in Arnprior. With this new legislation and a new minister in charge, the opportunity now exists to reverse the mistakes made by the minister's predecessor and utilize the Arnprior campus of the Emergency Preparedness College.

It is a well known fact that the lack of emergency preparedness for such disasters as the SARS outbreak and the power grid failure were in part caused by the chaos of shuffling public servants to Ottawa with no benefit to the safety and security of Canadians.

It is also recognized that the reputation of the Emergency Preparedness College in Arnprior was both a national and an international one. A brand new four-lane highway from Ottawa to Arnprior has opened. An announcement, along with this legislation, that the Emergency Preparedness College is moving from its temporary location in Ottawa back to Arnprior would go a long way to restoring credibility to the administration of emergency preparedness in Canada.

I understand that only one other jurisdiction in the world, one in the Baltic states, has located the command centre of its emergency preparedness headquarters outside an area that would be a target for a strike, the nation's capital. That is poor planning and precisely the kind of decision that reduces the confidence of our allies in our ability to respond to the war on terrorism.

Let us be clear. The public policy behind this bureaucratic reorganization is a war on terrorism. If at the end of the day the same inefficiencies, lack of coordination and poor communication that resulted in the creation of this new ministry are only going to be buried in a larger bureaucracy where it can be easier to hide poor decisions, this process is a wasted exercise and a poor use of the taxpayers' dollars.

It was the inability of the previous minister of emergency preparedness, who had the statutory authority but lacked a grasp of the importance of the portfolio, that led to the travel advisory being issued against Toronto during the SARS episode. Information was not communicated to the World Health Organization in a timely fashion. The leadership role that the Minister for Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness was intended to assume never materialized. The cost to the tourism industry in Toronto and the rest of the province of Ontario was in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

The great blackout in the summer of 2003 is the next example of a lack of coordination that led to mass confusion and conflicting messages being sent out by the federal government. It is important to note that in the threat analysis prepared by OCIPEP, it totally discounted the likelihood of a power grid failure. This explains why the Government of Canada was so unprepared for that emergency and the subsequent misinformation that was distributed to the public.

While these mistakes in and of themselves did not contribute directly to a loss of life that we know of, the next time could have very tragic circumstances.

I look forward to seeing if the Government of Canada meets the expectations of Canadians with this bureaucratic reorganization or if taxpayers are once again saddled with the costs and expenses of a departmental shuffle with the same problems that existed, only under a different name.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in this House to speak on this bill.

Just to situate things, we in the Bloc Québécois support this bill and shall be voting in favour of it. Nevertheless, with your permission, I have one thing to say. Today we are discussing the amendment proposed by the Bloc and adopted by all the opposition parties, a majority in the committee, as the House now realizes. I shall read clause 6(1) as it was originally drafted:

In exercising his or her powers and in performing his or her duties and functions, the Minister may:

(a) initiate, recommend, coordinate, implement or promote policies, programs or projects relating to public safety and emergency preparedness;—

The hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, who is on the committee, proposed an amendment to the beginning of clause 6(1), to read: “In exercising his or her powers and in performing his or her duties and functions and with due regard to the powers conferred on the provinces and territories, the Minister may—”

This amendment is essential to the adoption of this bill. We do not see any reason for our Liberal party colleagues opposite to object. It is a very important amendment because it directly affects provincial jurisdictions in certain sectors. If the proposed amendment were not adopted, it would enable the government to directly affect the jurisdictions of emergency preparedness, public health, the establishment, maintenance and administration of prisons and reformatories in the provinces, disasters that are usually local in nature, and the administration of justice.

In Quebec we have a public security program that has existed for many years and which is ably coordinated by the Department of Public Security. Emergency preparedness also exists and is also ably coordinated by the same department.

The government would like to add its presence. Federal help is appreciated, but must not be imposed. Quebec and the provinces must remain the primary contractors and must have the last word. When we talk about natural disasters, from floods to ice storms, we think it is important for this bill to be passed, if it respects provincial jurisdictions.

Quebec has set up its own organization to see to the public security of Quebeckers. It is working fine and the federal government might compromise its efficiency and effectiveness by duplicating it.

Those who can best manage public safety are local elected representatives, who are familiar with citizens' programs. The federal government conceives its intervention plans away from the site and from reality. If this amendment is not passed, the federal government could try to impose them, when they are less adapted and could well thwart efficient provincial plans

This is why we agree with the legislation. We have always said that it was an important bill, which should have been passed long ago. However, the federal government has been once more dragging its feet.

I repeat that the federal government invests 44% of its budget in provincial fields of jurisdiction.

Enough is enough. If the federal government wants to have a law on public safety, we agree. However, this bill must not infringe upon provincial fields of jurisdiction, and the federal government must work jointly with the provinces to create programs and, above all, cooperate with the provinces to implement them.

This is why we are asking all the members of the House to vote in favour of the amendment of the Bloc—reject the Liberal Party's motion—and to ensure that we go back to the bill as amended, where section 6(1) reads:

In exercising his or her powers and in performing his or her duties and functions and with due regard to the powers conferred on the provinces and territories, the Minister may—

We strongly believe in this bill and we will support it if this amendment is a part of it.