Debates of Nov. 17th, 2004

Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from the Bloc Québécois for his question.

I agree with him. He is absolutely right. The firearms registry is a waste.

It is a simple matter. Why does the government continue to take an ineffective approach? This can be an emotional issue at times since it touches on violence and violence prevention.

However, I think it would be better to invest money in the police force. The justice system needs more resources.

It seems to me to be very obvious that it is a clear question of priorities for the government. I fear greatly that this is a simultaneous face-saving and rear-end-covering exercise on the part of the government members right now. They do not want to admit that this system has not worked.

They do not want to admit that the money could have been more effectively spent by putting it into programming, for example, helping victims. I would suggest, and I believe my colleague would agree, that there is much more we could do in this country to fund a victims' ombudsman's office, which would allow victims to get the information they need in a timely fashion and to know when a parole is coming up and the person who violated their rights is being released.

It is clearly a strategic decision on the part of the government.

Unfortunately, this was a terrible decision for the country, for Quebec and for all the provinces. I think a new Conservative government would change this approach. It would cancel the disastrous firearms registry, invest the money and change direction. It would simply have a more effective approach. We could use the resources to support police officers in the important work they do every day in this country.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-6 is precipitated a lot from the dealings with the United States and having to coordinate our trade and other policies for national security. That is also going to require massive infrastructure and investment by the government because those policies conflict with our current streets, roads, bridges and tunnels, all those things.

My concern is whether the Conservative Party will support that infrastructure investment that is so necessary. The Ontario Chamber of Commerce, for example, said that the border in my area lost about $4 billion this year alone because of lack of infrastructure. Will his party support that in a balanced approach as opposed to just tax cuts?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, to my colleague from Windsor, there is no doubt it is an important issue and we absolutely support the infrastructure that is necessary to improve traffic at the border.

I was made aware of a recent study from the United States perspective. Its department of transportation study indicates that the costs attributed to border delays in that country is upwards of $17.4 billion annually. That is from the U.S. side of the border.

I would suggest that in Canadian funds we are suffering similarly from the problems that are associated with delays at the border: the infrastructure change, the bridge in his area, the Ambassador bridge, has to be improved, and the border security around the city of Windsor has to be changed. They are talking about moving it back.

The Conservative Party is very supportive of the efforts to fulfill our obligations and to ensure there is a free flow of traffic that is safe and secure.

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

Mr. Speaker, at first glance, one might think that, basically, all this bill is about is a change of designation, from Solicitor General Canada to Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada. Even just that would be an improvement. The responsibilities of the new department are certainly better defined.

As this bill is introduced, with the importance it is clearly given by the Prime Minister by putting in charge of this new department his Deputy Prime Minister, I think that it represents a significant change and I hope that it will continue to be considered as such within the government.

Before making my point, I will say that this is certainly a topic on which Quebec and the rest of Canada think very much alike. In fact, I think that the cooperation that we should be getting and that I hope to be getting in this respect would be a good example of the kind of cooperation that could exist between two sovereign nations within a real confederation, which is the objective I have pursued throughout my political career.

The reason this particular bill is so important is precisely because it is being introduced at a time when great challenges have to be met. After World War II—I was born in the early days of the war—I spent my life dreading another world war or, worse yet, an atomic war that might spell death for the planet. The greatest threat at the time was indeed clashes between the Communist bloc and the free world, while other countries stood by. That was the main military threat.

Canada, at the time, with the second largest landmass in the world but a fraction of the world's population and wealth, was perfectly aware of the fact that it was unable to provide adequate protection for this huge landmass and its inhabitants. Therefore, throughout the 20th century, Canada consistently relied on its participation in major international alliances, in which it has played a heroic part on occasion and many Canadians have also played a part. In this spirit, it continues to support UN operations conducted under an international flag.

What is the greatest threat to the security of Canadians and Quebeckers in this 21st century? Which countries are likely to threaten to invade us and deprive us of our freedom? Clearly, the cold war is over. There are new alliances. Unfortunately, at the dawn of the 21st century, more precisely on September 11, 2001, we discovered a new threat to civilized countries, and countries as a whole, namely terrorism.

Consequently, since terrorism is the greatest threat, we must refocus our forces and our defence system to counter this new threat.

As a matter of fact, it could even strike here. Terrorists who struck Bali could just as well strike Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver. Moreover, even if there is no immediate threat here, I think we all see it as our role to cooperate in the fight against terrorism and make sure that nobody on our territory is planning terrorist attacks on our allies or even other countries.

Essentially we do not fight terrorism with traditional weapons. If we take the terrorist threat seriously, we should expect a significant transfer of resources from the Department of National Defence to the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

Whatever resources we devote to intelligence gathering, the fight against terrorism mainly involves the systematic gathering of information, secret information of course, since by definition terrorists operate in secrecy. Occasionally countries harbour terrorists. In such cases, the world community has every right to forcefully remove any government that is encouraging the spread of terrorism from its territory. That is what we did in Afghanistan with our allies under the United Nations flag.

Once that has been done, terrorism remains a secret activity and the way to fight terrorism is to establish networks of informants and to develop our secret services.

No matter what the resources we are going to devote to security information, we can be pretty well sure that they will never be enough to provide us with the assurance that we will never fall victim to terrorist attacks.

The only way to gain that assurance would be to live in an environment similar to the former communist regimes, with their multiple controls and lack of freedom. That, obviously, no one wants. I might add that the terrorists would have scored a great victory if they had managed to change us into that kind of a society.

We must therefore expect a major increase in undercover surveillance activities. This, of necessity, puts the respect of fundamental rights at risk. Even cooperation with our allies presents risks to individual freedom as we see it, and our respect for privacy.

We have seen the disastrous effects on Canadians of giving information to allied undercover services, disastrous effects we had not intended. The major challenge is to find a happy medium between increased security information gathering activities and the respect of human rights

There is a great fascination for such undercover activity. It has inspired numerous popular novels and films. It is far removed from reality, however. The reality is patient information gathering, it is patience, intelligence, the ability to link scattered information together so as to eventually identify groups, guess what they are planning, gather evidence, and take timely action. There is no room for failure.

Nevertheless, people involved in the secret service are a source of fascination for people. The fascination of seeing into others' lives, somewhat the way people are now fascinated with reality TV. There is a tendency to abuse this ability, which is why it is very important to set effective controls, not only to protect people's privacy and the values we subscribe to—freedom and respect of privacy—but also simply for the sake of efficiency.

As I said, there will likely never be enough resources. So the best use must be made of the ones we have. They are not to be used for frivolous purposes not to restrict the activities and freedom of people who have no intention of resorting to violence. We have to know when enough is enough.

It is also dangerous because it provides the government with powerful tools they can use against their political opponents. Since these activities are kept secret, the government might be tempted to use the resources put at its disposal to fight terrorism to get information about its political foes, which would give it an edge.

This is one of the concerns the committee on which I sat noted in Australia, New Zealand, Norway, the United States and England. Parliamentary controls were developed. So, there is a risk that we need to address here. The huge challenge facing the minister today has to do with balance.

Let me say, in all honesty, that I think the Prime Minister probably chose the best person he could to try to achieve that balance. As a former justice minister, a former law professor, a great supporter of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms adamant about its enforcement, she has maintained balance in her public life.

I do hope she realizes the importance and enormity of the task ahead. I also hope that she is aware she will have a tough time keeping abreast of the secret activities of her department, since secret services are usually wary about political leaders. What will make her work even harder is that the management of all the increased resources she is getting is too much for one person. It would be naive to assume that there will not be any abuses, hence the need to have monitoring agencies whose resources are already too limited.

We have them, but many people complain that budgets and resources are insufficient. They will obviously need even more resources if we increase the resources given to the secret services. Their increase must be proportional to the increase of the resources provided to these secret services.

It is also necessary to establish, as in other democracies, a parliamentary control, as promised by the Prime Minister. This committee must be representative of Parliament, thus of the people, of those who, although they want major changes to current institutions, pursue and have always pursued their action in a democratic and peaceful context.

It is not against even the major changes that the secret services must work, but against the use of violence to provoke changes. This is certainly an objective shared by all of us who are democrats in the first place.

This is why I am still a bit concerned when I see the minister's attitude toward the suggestions made by the privacy commissioner, Ms. Stoddart. She has rejected a little too lightly her suggestion to have an officer dedicated to assessing the unavoidable infringements on privacy that intelligence activities require.

For my part, I believe that having such an officer may be useful not only to ensure the necessary protection of privacy or limit the unnecessary violation of privacy, but also to ensure the efficiency of the secret service. As I said earlier, when you start to unnecessarily encroach on privacy, it means that you are not doing your work properly, that resources are not focussed where they should be focussed, resources that are, as I said, probably always scarce and should be entirely dedicated to counter plotting by those wanting to use violence to bring about changes. We are a democratic society able to bring about changes.

The minister is a good choice, but only time will tell if she is up to the important task she has been given.

Similarly, her ability to have important resources transferred from the Department of National Defence will be an indication of her political weight. It will also be an indication of whether or not the Prime Minister is truly aware of the new security challenges of the 21st century.

I will now go to the specifics. We put forward an amendment the government seems to say it will reluctantly accept. Let us be clear. If the federal government had never encroached on provincial jurisdictions, this amendment would not have been necessary.

I might elaborate on that at another time, but I sincerely believe that federal encroachment in provincial jurisdictions is somewhat of a natural phenomenon since it is the manifestation of the Canadian anglophone nation's will to give the government it controls the means to tackle problems it perceives as the most pressing.

Quebec also acts as a nation. Quebec would like its government, which it controls, to look after what it considers the most pressing problems.

I think the federal government's mentality also goes against the spirit of a true federation. According to its way of thinking, it is the senior government and, in areas where we have to work together, it has to take initiative and establish the rules. I do not want things to be that way. I want, as the parliamentary secretary to the minister said, for there to be cooperation between the provincial and federal governments. However, I want even more. I want there to be respect between the two parties.

It is certainly not impossible. I have seen this respect myself when we were working on the fight against biker gangs and we established the Carcajou squad. It was directed alternately by an officer from the Sûreté du Québec and an officer from the Montreal police, and RCMP investigators agreed to cooperate. I think they were proud of the work that was accomplished. We are one of the only places in the world that has succeeded not in completely eliminating, but in truly breaking up the dangerous Hell's Angels organization.

As the crown prosecutor said—and I agree with him—the fight against organized crime is like housework: it never ends. However, with the new legislation the Minister of Justice has given us, it will be more difficult to establish such a powerful organization.

Thus, it is possible for the federal government to act, cooperate and find its place while respecting provincial organizations.

In conclusion, we already have teams to fight against a biological, chemical, radiological or nuclear attack and we have here a good example for making these teams available to all Canadians.

Now you can understand our full agreement with this department's creation and our view of this department's importance. We are prepared to cooperate, but rest assured we will keep a close eye on you.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin.

I am always delighted to hear from the member opposite. He has vast experience in public safety and law in the province of Quebec and has experience of how different governments can cooperate, the federal government with the provincial government. I know he does that in a very non-partisan way. We understand the objectives of his party. He makes a very important point that it goes beyond just articulating powers. It goes to having mutual respect, and the member opposite demonstrates that.

The member talks about why he believes it would be natural for the federal government to try to intrude or get a presence in areas that might be seen to be provincial. We could have a longer debate on that point.

I think the member would also acknowledge, maybe not publicly but privately, that given his political objectives, he would want to ensure that the provincial powers are asserted and maybe push the envelope on that the other way. This is part of the counterpoint and part of the balance that we strive for in debate in Canada.

I wanted to come back to the point the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin made about the privacy commissioner. I hear what he says about the delicate balance and the challenges that we all have, the minister, the government and all members of Parliament, to ensure we have the correct balance between our national security objectives and the privacy of Canadians.

There were long discussions with the privacy commissioner when she came before the committee with some ideas for amendments. In fact there is quite a good rapport with the privacy commissioner. The government and the minister understand the importance of privacy in relation to her portfolio. They see it as an integral part of what she does.

What the government had some difficulty with was enshrining a reference to the minister's responsibilities with respect to privacy, which already are dealt with in a privacy act and which would seem to present the position that privacy then would trump the Charter of Rights, access to information and the relations we have with other countries, the treaties and agreements with them. That was the only point.

The minister has responsibility with respect to privacy. The privacy commissioner respects that and will continue to respect it. We will continue to work with her in a very constructive way.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary very much for his question. I think that this is a field in which there are no great differences of opinion between Quebec and the rest of Canada. Therefore, we can collaborate on this.

I do not have much time to explain it, but you will understand why these political goals are not compromised by our attitude at present, if we allow for a number of things. I will not say much about it, but I believe I express the opinion of most Quebeckers when I say that I do not hate Canada or Canadians. What I do not like is the Canadian Constitution because, while it was not intended to do so, its practical result is to ensure that we will eventually be eliminated. That is what we want to change.

In fact, I appreciate confederation so much that for my first mandate in Ottawa, I was assigned an office in the Confederation Building. That is what we really want. Even though we want a true confederation, each nation keeps its own sovereignty. Nevertheless, we have agreements among us and if we want to maintain our partnership or association, it is because we share common values with the rest of Canada.

Here is one area where we share common values. Respect for democracy, respect for freedom, and also respect for privacy. It is clear that there are differences between our attitude and that of our neighbours to the south and even of many other countries.

Still, I am quite pleased with it. I hope that the government's attitude to the Privacy Commissioner's warnings will translate into something—perhaps not an amendment to the bill, but an administrative structure that, without interfering with the collection of security intelligence, will be able to ensure that such intelligence is always used for its original purpose, the fight against terrorism and violence, and does not stray into unnecessary intrusions into private life.

When such intrusions are necessary, secrecy must be maintained. The information obtained in this way must never be made public or used for other purposes, even for purposes of the governing party.

That is why—

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I would like to permit one more question. The hon. member for Windsor West.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member talked about partnerships and Bill C-6 really is about putting groups and organizations together and about reaching beyond our traditional partnerships. However one group that I have not heard a lot of discussion about and one that is very important for national security and being able to respond to emergencies is our firefighters.

Firefighters from many municipalities require training for emergency preparedness. They have requested some additional resources to be able to be trained properly to deal with that.

Does the hon. member support the proposition that our firefighters be brought into the fold to make sure that our first responders are very well-equipped and well-trained to ensure they could be on the ground level supporting men and women in our community in times of emergency?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would say it depends on the province. Some provinces are large enough to look after the training of their first responders themselves.

Maybe you do not know, but of the major reforms I made as public security minister, was the fire safety system reform. Firefighters had been waiting for this reform for fifteen years, and they were quite glad of it.

Firefighters are more and more professional, and I think their development should continue, not only in firefighting, but also in prevention and everything that has to do with first response.

I hope that someday, we will be at a level similar to what I have seen in New York, where even medical procedures by firefighters are common. Firefighters are those most present everywhere and they are in a position to meet the needs more quickly. That is why they save many human lives.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin for his outstanding speech. However, I was slightly disappointed by the contribution of the governing party in this debate. Personally, I felt the government was acting in bad faith when it wanted to change a decision made in committee.

For this reason, I would like to ask a question of my colleague concerning clause 6 of this bill which provides:

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

(b) cooperate with any province, foreign state, international organization or any other entity; [...]

(d) facilitate the sharing of information, where authorized[...]

However, this clause does not specify who gives the authorization.

I would like my colleague to tell us if this issue has been discussed in committee and what prevented the change.

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

Mr. Speaker, numerous discussions took place in committee. Nonetheless, we mostly discussed some amendments to the act, which are quite simple.

I can explain one change that has not been much discussed up to now, but that is very important. Its importance will be seen later anyway. This change is on the last clause, that is clause 38.

It does not seem much but the changing of the last clause from “The provisions of this Act [....] come into force on a day to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council” to “This Act [...] comes into force on a day to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council” precludes the government's bringing all the provisions of the bill into force without the amendments it granted to the opposition. It will have to bring the entire legislation into force.

This is one item, but there are others.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Palliser, Sponsorship Program; the hon. member for Quebec, Child Care.

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

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us has the unanimous support of all parties. It did not require a great deal of work to achieve that consensus. All of us have felt for some time that the need to deliver our security services efficiently, both domestically and internationally, has been wanting. When the bill was brought forward at the start of this session, all opposition parties with an open mind were willing to accept it with some minor changes.

Before I go to those, however, I would like to address why we needed this so badly. As a result of the terrible tragedy that occurred on September 11, 2001, we have learned that there are significant flaws in our system. These flaws have been documented by reports across all of our allies: the 9/11 report in the United States, the Bali report in Australia and the Butler report in England. Each one of those reports has shown that the services that we have show a significant tendency, and this may even be a human tendency, to build those traditional silos and then hide behind those silos, in fact defend them in a very territorial fashion.

Unfortunately, as much as one might admire some of the loyalty that is shown within those agencies to that silo defence, it leads inevitably, in each of those jurisdictions I just mentioned, to a lack of cooperation so that the loyalty that we see in terms of defending the agency is extended to the degree that it becomes dysfunctional. In fact, it prevents those agencies from cooperation. We have seen that in all three of those countries.

There is some indication, most of it anecdotal here in Canada, that similar things have happened. We certainly saw some evidence come out in the course of the Air India trial where because of the lack of cooperation, it would appear, and a reduction in the effectiveness of our intelligence services and security services in the investigation of that crime, it has caused the trial to be dragged out over a much longer period than it would have been otherwise had there been more cooperation. I do not want to overemphasize that particular case because it is, of course, still before the courts and we may get some indication at some point whether that is a complete reality.

However, we know that this is a problem. From my experiences in another committee on which I sat this past summer, our services are conscious of it. The committees and the inspector general that oversee this are very conscious of it. Attempts are being made to eradicate that lack of cooperation and, as a member of the NDP, I applaud those efforts.

This bill is one of the methodologies that we are deploying as a government to facilitate cooperation and to downplay any of this territoriality that leads to a dysfunctional service.

As a party we are quite pleased to support the bill and will be voting in favour of it once debate at third reading is complete. However I want to acknowledge that there were some flaws identified when the bill went to the committee and amendments were moved. I want to draw the House's attention to the amendments that were moved to clauses 5 and 6.

The amendment to clause 5 was to specify the agencies that would now be consolidated under one department and under one minister. They are: the RCMP, CSIS, the Canada Border Services Agency, the Canada Firearms Centre, the Correctional Service of Canada and the National Parole Board. These are the existing agencies and departments that will be incorporated.

I want to make this point because on this amendment there was criticism coming from the government side that it somehow would hamstring the minister. I want to be very clear that the amendment, and the bill as it is before the House, particularly clause 5, allow for additional agencies to be added. I have to say, again based on some of the experiences I had this summer, that I believe this should be happening fairly soon. I am not sure the government members are on side with that, but if they do come to that realization and wish to add additional agencies under the purview of the minister, they in fact are able to do so without amendments to the law that will flow out of this bill.

I want to perhaps applaud the opposition parties. In the course of that amendment coming forward, all three opposition parties supported it. There was a good discussion. It was a good example, if I can put it that way, of the parliamentary committee system working.

Similarly, with clause 6, the amendment was brought forth provides for a direction, in effect, to the minister to exercise his or her authority and powers under this law in compliance with the constitutional jurisdiction of the provinces and the territories. Again there was a good discussion. The opposition parties, after listening to that discussion, are all supporting this amendment.

It is one that I believe is particularly important if one begins to appreciate what is going on in Canada at the present time in terms of the police forces of the provinces and the municipalities cooperating extensively with our national agencies in gathering evidence. In some cases, what has been traditional intelligence gathering is being assisted if not outright conducted by our provincial and municipal police forces in cooperation with and generally under the direction of our federal agencies such as the RCMP and CSIS.

The cause for concern as a result of this is that we want to be very clear that the provinces and the territories retain their traditional jurisdiction in the areas of enforcement, at the same time recognizing that right across the country we have been cooperating with the federal agencies and in fact taking on additional workloads since September 11, 2001.

We wanted that workload to be conducted in such a way that it always remained within the control of the provinces and the territories and that protocols were worked out with the federal government and its agencies on an ongoing basis. We did not want the jurisdiction of the provinces and the territories impugned. I believe that this amendment brought forward on clause 6 takes into account the reality of what is going on in the country right now within our police forces. It protects that jurisdiction of the provinces and territories. Again there was a good discussion in the committee, in the way that committees are supposed to function, we all believe, and perhaps in practice do not as often as they should. The committee did function well here.

Both of these amendments were put through and are now back before the House with what I believe to be an improved bill.

Along the same lines of the conduct of the committee, other amendments were proposed and were turned down. I want to draw to the attention of the House the fact that the Privacy Commissioner came before the committee as a witness and proposed two amendments, one that I would say she was not pressing for but one that she felt was in fact necessary.

After listening to her testimony, questioning her and having a thorough discussion in the committee, we determined in regard to the proposal she was making, although it was in its essence very valid, that is, concerns over privacy and how information was being used or could be used and in fact abused, it was not appropriate to deal with it at this time in this bill.

I think we all felt we had a sense of responsibility to the Privacy Commissioner to be very clear with her that we appreciated her initiative in this regard and that it is one she should pursue in other legislation, either in existing law or in fact some amendments to new legislation that should be forthcoming in the next while. We appreciated the initiative, but we felt that it was not in this law that it should be dealt with.

In that regard, there certainly was a good deal of discussion about the fact that a lot of our information at the international level is being shared. There were concerns expressed about whether the proper protocols are in place to protect Canadians from that information being abused in other countries.

Obviously the case that comes to mind is the Maher Arar case, and there are the suspicions we all have as to whether that happened in his case. Certainly at the superficial level it would now appear quite clear that it did. Who was at fault is unclear and that of course is the major subject as I see it of the O'Connor inquiry that is going on at the present time. Coming out of this, we may in fact get some recommendations that will invoke that concern of the Privacy Commissioner and we may pursue this at some point down the road. Certainly that is the intention of my party and it is one that we will follow quite closely once we have that report.

The additional point I would like to make is that this bill is just the start of the work that needs to be done to make sure that we do not end up as so many other countries have. Our traditional allies, the United States, the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Australia, all have demonstrated that within their services there is a need for ongoing vigilance, that the services are working at their peak efficiency, if I can put it that way. We as members of this House have a responsibility to see that there is an infrastructure in place which maximizes the likelihood of that occurring. This is one bill that we are quite happy to support as the first step in achieving that result, but it is certainly not the end.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh represents an area that abuts the Windsor-Detroit border crossing, a hugely important corridor for trade and for individuals going back and forth.

When I was down there recently I met with the member, his colleague and the mayor. I went across the Ambassador Bridge and back through the tunnel. I met with all the customs people and other stakeholders.

The mayor, I gather, has a plan. I think he perhaps is unfolding the plan as we speak. I know that for the city of Windsor itself there are a number of issues in respect of the traffic flows, the environmental issues, and for Canadians in general and the business community to get goods to market and back and forth given the level of integration between the economies in that area. Goods come from Detroit, are sent to a plant in Windsor where more value is added, and then they are sent back to the U.S. They go back and forth.

Could the member share some of his insights and wisdom with the House on how we might balance local interests against some of the national interests of people across Canada who rely on this border to move our goods and people?

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

Mr. Speaker, this issue has been the dominant issue in the Windsor-Detroit corridor since September 11, 2001. There is just no other issue at the same level of concern for the residents of Windsor and Essex County.

To answer directly the question that is being asked, I do not see an inherent conflict between the interests of the residents and businesses in the city of Windsor and the county of Essex and the international trade that moves within our municipal jurisdiction across that border in both directions.

What has happened is that the determination on the part of the U.S. government to place--I understand this and I am very careful about using these words--as an absolute its security above all other considerations has developed to such an extreme that it is imperilling the economic health of the region, and not just on the Canadian side of the border but on both sides of the border.

We have had studies done by the chambers of commerce on both sides showing losses, on an annual basis since September 11, on the Canadian side running between $5 billion and $7 billion annually to the general economy in southwestern Ontario, and losses of as much as $10 billion to the economy in the adjoining states on the American side, in Michigan, Ohio and Indiana.

I want to point something out. I can recall this and I am taking some pride in saying, “I told you so”. The big problem was that the American side was not putting money directly into the border services. On the Canadian side we had, if I can use this figure, 10 booths open and allowing traffic to move onto the Canadian side, and only 4 or 6 operating on the American side.

To show how effective this has been, the American side just recently opened four additional booths. They were operating at full capacity as of September of this year and for the first time in three years we have not had consistent backups at the border. It was a relatively simple solution. It is not the end of it, because we need another border crossing and there is no question of that in my mind. But there were some simple solutions and that was one of them. The mayor has more.

You are signalling me, Mr. Speaker, to stop talking. I will leave it at that.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to repeat the question I asked a little earlier. I will try to be a little more precise to make sure that I am well understood.

We all know how this government can take advantage of the slightest opportunity to grab powers that the stakeholders are not necessarily ready to see it assume. The member for Windsor—Tecumseh said something to that effect. I have lived in his riding, in the French area of Windsor and I really liked it.

In the light of the Maher Arar case, the Bloc wanted the powers of the minister to be a bit more limited to avoid repeating the errors of the past. The Bloc recognizes that there has been an attempt to bring in some control by the addition of the words “where authorized”. However, the vagueness of this limit could cause a lot of problems. We should first define who can authorize the minister to share this information and ensure the credibility and impartiality of this person or entity responsible for privacy.

I would like to know if the committee fully considered this request.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Bloc for his question.

The answer is no. The committee has not done anything in this regard.

It is one that badly needs to be looked at. The difficulty in which the committee found itself was because the O'Connor inquiry was underway, it would have been presumptuous for us to do an analysis at this point.

I would also like to point out to the member from the Bloc that the proposal for a national security oversight type of committee is before the Deputy Prime Minister at this point, and coming out of that, the types of protocol that we need. We have them now. There is some suggestion clearly that they need revision, updating and strengthening as to the sharing of information with our allies. Perhaps it could be said that we share 100% of all our intelligence material with those four allies: the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand.

Protocols are in place. There are some suggestions up to this point in the Arar case that they were not properly followed. We will get that from the commission when it reports. My sense is we need to do more and it should not be left exclusively in the hands of the minister. A parliamentary committee should be in place to review those protocols and see that they are proper, that they are in force and that there will be ongoing monitoring of them once they are developed.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh for spending his summer working on this file and for all his efforts to push the issue forward for our community.

In his speech he mentioned the approximately $4 billion to $7 billion approximately that the Ontario Chamber of Commerce estimated was lost every year because of border backups. He mentioned that four booths were added on the American side at a cost of about $1.5 billion per booth.

I have been pushing the government to have a public border authority or commission. We have one of the few crossings in this nation that has any coordination from the central government, and also a public interest clause. Given his experience on the committee, would he be supportive of ensuring that we have a free flow of trade and good government policy and supports for all border crossings, whether they be public or private?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the work the member of Windsor West he has done. All three of the crossings, including the train crossing, are in his riding. He has led the way on a good deal of the effort we have put into play to try to resolve the issue.

Specifically, on the authority, there is no question that we need it and that it be coordinated very tightly with the U.S. side. There are constant decisions of an almost emergency nature that need to be made. From talking to our police forces and our fire services, we know it is very difficult for that cooperation to occur because we do not have a central body in the local area to make those decisions. I would be very supportive of us establishing an authority, the federal government being the initiator in that regard.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Ahuntsic.

I rise to speak in support of Bill C-6, which establishes the new Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. The legislation is essential to ensuring the safety of Canadians and our communities. It will help give police and other first responders the tools they need to make the right decisions at the right time on the front lines where it matters most.

Bill C-6 provides that one department, the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, will take a leadership role and coordinate the setting of priorities with other departments and with the agencies in the portfolio, in order to act as a central point for issues of public security and emergency preparedness and to strengthen accountability for the way the government assumes its security responsibilities.

Simply put, the legislation provides greater support for police and other law enforcement personnel. This is where I would like to focus my attention today.

This summer Statistics Canada released a study that found that 82% of Canadians said that they had a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in the police. This fall an Ekos survey showed that a full 90% had moderate or high confidence in the RCMP. These are numbers of which we should be very proud.

We need to ensure that Canadians continue to respect and trust these organizations and do so with good reason. We need to support our police and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to do the job right.

We operate in a much different criminal environment than we did 50, 20 even 5 years ago. We are also entering a new frontier in law enforcement that requires us to think about policing and law enforcement much differently.

As a government, we must re-examine how we approach our safety and security responsibilities on a local, national and international level. We know that increasingly, situations that happen in one part of the world have far-reaching ramifications in other areas. In today's environment a small drug dealer who is arrested in a Canadian community could have links to a terrorist group halfway around the world.

This reinforces the need for governments and law enforcement agencies to work together locally, nationally and internationally to properly address common issues with a unified approach. Bill C-6 provides the foundation for our government to do exactly that.

Since the Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness portfolio was created nearly a year ago, the department and agencies have worked more cohesively to ensure the security of Canada and the Canadian public.

This bill will not change these new working relationships. In fact, it will provide an opportunity to solidify them and give clear direction to the department and the agencies within the portfolio.

When it comes to policing and law enforcement, there have been a number of recent accomplishments that I would like to highlight as evidence of this new and improved working relationship. These success stories are proof positive that when the Prime Minister created this new department last December, he did the right thing for Canada and for Canadians.

This October the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness met in Ottawa with then U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft for the eighth annual Canada-U.S. cross-border crime forum.

At this year's forum, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and Mr. Ashcroft made a number of important announcements that would reinforce the new era of more and better collaboration among law enforcement agencies at home and with our U.S. counterparts.

First, the two officials released the 2004 Canada-U.S. border drug threat assessment. This report examined the nature of drug trade between our two countries, highlighted successes achieved together and looked at how to better respond to this shared problem.

As a result of better international cooperation arising from the cross-border crime forum, this past March law enforcement officials from both sides of the border executed the largest single binational enforcement action ever taken against ecstasy traffickers. Over 130 individuals were arrested in 19 cities. Officers seized over 877,000 ecstasy pills, 120 kilograms of powder and $6 million.

The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and Mr. Ashcroft also announced new measures to enhance intelligence gathering and information sharing to combat cross-border crime and terrorist activity. At four of our integrated border enforcement team, or IBET, locations, Canada and U.S. law enforcement intelligence officers will now be co-located. At two locations here in Canada and two locations across the border in the United States, Canadian and American intelligence staff will literally and figuratively work shoulder to shoulder to secure our shared border.

The cross-border crime forum is an innovative vehicle to promote collaboration with our Canadian and American partners. It is co-led by the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada and the U.S. department of justice. It has been showcased as a model for cross-border law enforcement collaboration by other organizations, including the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation and the Organization of American States.

The accomplishments of this forum are but a few examples of the excellent work being done thanks to a better targeted approach that has made increased collaboration possible since the creation of the new department.

Among the very important questions for police forces, for this government and in fact, for the entire Canadian public, are the identification, disruption and dismantling of organized crime groups.

Organized crime is an issue that affects ordinary Canadians. While many of its activities seem to have no direct bearing on the lives of law-abiding citizens, the consequences of organized crime are far-reaching. For example, we are seeing a rise in marijuana grow operations, most of which have a direct link to organized crime groups. Grow ops defraud hydro and insurance companies. They are a serious fire risk and threaten the lives of citizens who live nearby. Proceeds from the sale of drugs are often used to buy weapons and allow criminal groups to branch into other illicit businesses.

Furthermore, the days of these organizations operating as independent, mutually hostile factions is ending. We are seeing a new level of collaboration among organized crime groups that calls for, in fact demands, a response that is even more cohesive.

Simply put, the security, intelligence and law enforcement communities must continue to collaborate, and in fact look to enhance this integrated approach if we as a country and as a society are to succeed in fighting larger, more sophisticated organizations.

The creation of the public safety and emergency preparedness portfolio brings greater collaboration and focus to the government's efforts. It provides a vehicle and foundation for the department and its portfolio agencies to work together more and work together more effectively in combating shared threats like organized crime.

Our police and law enforcement community has benefited from the leadership of one department and one minister who is dedicated to greater cohesion within our borders and greater collaboration with our allies around the world.

We must do what we can to enshrine this leadership and accountability into law. We must provide our policing and law enforcement community with the tools they need to continue to fight against issues like drugs and organized crime and whatever other challenges come our way. We must do what we can as a government to ensure our nation is secure from threats, natural or man-made, and our citizens are safe in their communities.

Finally, we must ensure we are reaching out to all of those with a vested interested and a role to play in our safety and security mandate with one voice, under one minister, with a clear set of priorities and a decisive path forward.

I am confident that with the passage of Bill C-6 we can do just that.

[Marcel Gagnon, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have been closely following the debate since the beginning. I listened especially to my hon. colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, who shed a great deal of light on the purpose of the bill before the House. The previous speaker also tried to explain things.

This is a very important piece of legislation. It will put one minister in charge of six organizations. When I go through the list of the organizations the minister will be responsible for, I cannot help but notice the RCMP.

In his speech, the hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin told us how human rights could be threatened by this otherwise important bill. He did say that he hoped and believed human rights would be upheld, but the legislation could still be used for political purposes, against political opponents.

I am not convinced. I saw what happened in 1970 in Quebec. I spent a period of time that seemed to me way too long between two armed men. Since the day I spent a whole hour between two armed men before they realized their mistake, I have had doubts about giving more powers to police authorities.

Let me ask this to the previous speaker. Since history has a tendency to repeat itself, does the member think that things have changed enough that such important legislation can be enforced in a non partisan fashion with as much respect as possible being accorded to human rights?

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was quite young at the time of the events in Quebec that the member mentioned and, yes, there are fundamental changes that have occurred since that time.

The previous member from the Bloc has said he respects change that takes place in a democratic way. There were very terrible events that took place at that time. Perhaps if there had been the sort of respect that exists today, for example, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the evolution that has taken place in our society since that time, the people who were caught in the crossfire with this type of agency, and the changes that have taken place, would not have faced the potential threat of being caught in that sort of crossfire.

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

Madam Speaker, I had the great honour a few years ago of visiting Kiev in Ukraine. I was asked to speak on the topic of corruption and money laundering as a threat to international security.

I have been involved over a number of years with the Global Organization of Parliamentarians Against Corruption. I worked with the ministry of finance on implementing our anti-money laundering regime and FINTRAC. I was surprised that the meeting was put in the context of corruption and money laundering as a threat to international security. When I think about it, of course, it does make sense that corruption and money laundering are destabilizing. Money laundering facilitates terrorist acts. It deals with drug money and other types of laundered funds.

I wonder if the member could comment on the linkage that he might or might not see between corruption and money laundering, and public safety and security.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the amounts that we see in money laundering organizations and with these organized crime organizations are phenomenal. The threats that they pose because of the resources at their disposal can only be dealt with if we have a coordinated approach. That is why it is so critical that not just police forces but our intelligence community cooperate. A lot of these organized crime syndicates are in places, like the member had mentioned, in the former Soviet Union. They have very sophisticated methods and huge resources at their disposal. That is precisely why we need a coordination among our agencies to deal with those potential threats.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Social Development (Social Economy)]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise in this House to support this very important legislation, namely Bill C-6, An Act to establish the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and to amend or repeal certain Acts.

We all know that this bill is part of the government's strategy in response to the September 11, 2001, events, which raised public safety concerns all over the world, and particularly on the North American continent, to unprecedented levels.

I want to draw the attention of all members of this House by asking how we could contemplate imposing limits on the relentless fight against international terrorism.

All Canadians know that national safety knows no borders. We all know that the obligation imposed on all levels of government, in this country and in every other country, is to promote cooperation, partnership and the exchange of critical information to ensure the success of our common fight against terrorism.

The same is true in all areas of public safety and emergency preparedness. The fight against organized crime, drug trafficking and money laundering, for example, cannot stop at the borders of a country, a province or a state. On the contrary, all the authorities involved have an obligation to cooperate, to unite their efforts in order to succeed in deterring criminals, intercepting them and prosecuting them.

When we say that we are living in an era of globalization, we are not only referring to the economy, to trade or to the assistance provided to developing countries. No municipality, province or country can successfully overcome threats to public safety by acting alone.

This applies to emergency preparedness as well. If a natural disaster occurs, the primary responsibility lies with the provinces and local authorities, and the Government of Canada has never disputed that fact. We get involved when asked to do so by these authorities, under protocols that have been in place for a number of years.

This gradual response system works well, as we saw, for example, when the Quebec government, through then premier Lucien Bouchard, requested the presence of the Canadian army to help deal with the terrible effects of the ice storm in January 1998.

Natural disasters know no borders. Last summer, fires destroyed forests in British Columbia, Alberta, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. I saw that with my children, because I had an opportunity to be there, and it was an unmitigated disaster. This is the most telling example that collaboration between all authorities, local, provincial, territorial and national, is required, and it must be effective, in order to combat such disasters and assure the safety of all citizens.

Public safety and emergency preparedness are two components of the name for the entirely new department the government intends to create through the bill under consideration in this House.

Security concerns of all Canadian women and men, of all ages, and of all regions of our vast land have become global concerns, eliminating the traditional distinctions between national security and international security.

That this the great lesson, the unavoidable legacy of the September 11, 2001, attacks against the Americans, their territory and their institutions. We have all been called to reflect, no matter where we live on this planet, no matter what what our ties are at the local, provincial or national levels.

Since these sad events, the Government of Canada has been working relentlessly to ensure the safety of Canadian women and men, together with all its neighbours, allies and provincial and municipal partners, non-governmental and private. It really is collaboration at all levels.

Bill C-6 marks an essential step in the effective integration of efforts by the Government of Canada to meet that fundamental objective of reassuring Canadians.

I also want, at this point, to reassure other people from the cultural communities who have some concerns about this bill. Yesterday, I had the opportunity of meeting some representatives of the Canadian Arab Federation who came to Parliament Hill. I informed them that all the members of the House will make sure that this bill is not used to the detriment of any specific community or minority.

As for the debates at the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, even if I do not sit on this committee, I was given the assurance that this is the type of issue discussed by all members. We will ensure that this bill provides protection and respects the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the other laws of this country. I simply wanted to reassure all Canadians from other ethnocultural backgrounds because some of them are concerned about this bill.

Canadians, including those of other national origins, know very well that we need a collective security that goes well beyond our borders, real and imaginary. They know that cooperation from all stakeholders and governments as well as from all departments and agencies of the same government, must necessarily converge to be effective.

The establishment of the new Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness confirms this approach taken since the Prime Minister's announcement on December 12 last. This is a department integrating all federal efforts in these matters of security and protection, a department providing the leadership required for effective federal-provincial-territorial cooperation as well as the indispensable collaborative national and international efforts.

Crime, in any form, knows no borders. There are no borders defined where crime is concerned. It is well known that, today, with the new technology, there are fewer and fewer borders. Crime dictates that we cooperate in our efforts to fight crime beyond all borders, so that together we can efficiently flush out those criminals who are trying to hide behind them.

In matters of air safety, maritime safety, threats to public health, protection of essential infrastructure, cybersecurity, emergency measures management in the event of natural disasters, in all these matters, the security of all Canadians knows no borders, as I said. In all these matters, open and efficient cooperation between all the authorities is critical at the global, continental, national, provincial and local level.

All of our allies, neighbours, and national partners must join forces, be extremely vigilant and respond quickly, in the best interest of all the citizens of this country. In the moments following the events of September 11, 2001, all strengthened their ties of solidarity and networks of cooperation. We all worked together to ensure the safety and security of our fellow citizens.

The best examples I can give are very simple to understand. Just last weekend, another severe snow storm swept across Nova Scotia. Every effort was made by the authorities to ensure the safety and security of everyone. The hospitals, the streets, tens of thousands of people in shelters, no effort was spared to provide heat, food and comfort to Nova Scotians.

We are going to work on this bill. This is a bill that will not only ensure safety and security but also, at the same time, ensure that our rights and freedoms are respected, should some of our fellow citizens wonder.

Such is the price of efficiency, of safety and security, and even of freedom when under threat from malicious individuals or natural disasters.

For all these reasons, I encourage all the members of this House to support Bill C-6.