Debates of Sept. 21st, 2006

Canada Transportation Act

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-11, since I have a railroad yard in my riding. It is not surprising, since Montreal was one of the first industrialized cities.

Allow me first to take a couple of minutes, since this is my first speech in the House since our return. First, I want to wish all my colleagues a good return to Parliament and a warm welcome to the pages working with us.

I have sat in this House for 13 years now—less than you, Mr. Speaker—and I believe this is the first time we have had pages who are twins. They are Alain and Joël Dupuis. One is studying management and the other communications and political science. Their parents are Diane and Régent Dupuis from Sudbury.

I thought this was worth mentioning. We have twins in the House of Commons working on the floor at the same time. I am a twin and I thought it worth mentioning. I would like to give them a warm round of applause and I ask all my colleagues to join in. That being said, Alain is here and he would be pleased. Now back to the matter at hand.

I greatly enjoyed the speech made by the Bloc Québécois whip. He was quite eloquent when he spoke of the trade-off between economic imperatives and the reasons we are here in Parliament. Our first loyalty is to the quality of life of our constituents.

Hochelaga-Maisonneuve is in eastern Montreal and is a former working-class area. It is therefore not surprising that a railroad was set up there at the end of the 19th century. It was established in relation to the first industrialization.

Industrialization began in my neighbourhood. St. Lawrence Sugar, a refinery still operating on Notre Dame Street, was the first company established in Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. Back when this company set up shop, the city of Maisonneuve—which was then quite distinct from Montreal—offered tax breaks to attract more industries. We tend to forget that Maisonneuve was a very prosperous city. Some even called it the Pittsburgh of Canada. There were textile and shoe-making industries, as well as the Vickers shipyard. These industries produced a generation of specialized workers who earned a very good living and raised large families in six- or eight- room apartments in Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. Generations spent their lives there and benefited from local industrialization. Of course, the railway was an important factor in the economic growth of big cities.

The problem with railways and their operators is a lot like the problem with the Port of Montreal. There comes a time to reconcile economic imperatives and quality of life concerns. CN-CP has thought of itself as a city within a city for a long time now. I remember having certain conversations with its senior executives. With all due respect, I did not get the impression that quality of life figured very prominently among their priorities. I know that many of my House colleagues have the same complaints I have raised on behalf of the constituents of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve.

We are under no obligation to accept anything in the name of economic development, jobs in the community, or bringing people in to work where they live. It is not right for railway companies to operate 24/7.

Railway tracks can be found near Moreau, Wurtele, and Lespérance streets and Place De Léry, where up to three trains pass by every day and operations go on 24 hours a day; we can only imagine the situation. We can imagine what it must be like for someone to be awoken from a deep sleep after working all day, after getting up at 6:30, putting in an honest day's work, coming home at 5:00, making supper, giving the children a bath and putting them to bed, but not before their homework—of course the homework must be done—getting ready for bed, and then at 2 a.m., a train goes by or a whistle blows or engines are switched.

I have seen worse in my neighbourhood in Hochelaga—Maisonneuve: locomotives sitting idle for two or three hours, like it was nothing. As for pollution and oil, I have been told that the windows in the residential areas are always covered with a thin blackish film that is very difficult to remove.

Things have changed since the days of Émile Zola. It is no longer necessary to completely separate economic needs from quality of life. It makes no difference whether one lives in Hochelaga—Maisonneuve or elsewhere in Canada or Quebec, it is entirely reasonable to ask lawmakers to intervene.

The Bloc Québécois supports the principle of this bill. We can most certainly rely on the spirit, determination and wisdom of the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, our transport critic, a man of the law. Although he did not write his bar exams, he is a notary, and therefore has a legal background. He is a former mayor who has experience as a spokesperson for a national association, the Union des municipalités du Québec. This man is very concerned about land use planning and the regulatory powers of municipalities. However, he also shares the same primary concern as every member of this House, that is, the quality of life of our constituents.

I know that there have been many class action suits. I am aware that class action suits were launched by Blainville and the former city of Outremont—no, at the time the city had been incorporated into Montreal but now it is a city again, so I will say the city of Outremont. These two cities were convinced that, as the member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord said, the Canadian Transportation Agency, as a quasi-judicial body with comparable authority to a superior court, could hand down decisions and require the various transportation companies to take mitigation measures.

We were extremely surprised—not to say disappointed—when the Federal Court of Canada declared ultra vires the authority the Canadian Transportation Agency thought it had. If I am not mistaken, this is the third bill we have had about transportation. My colleague from Laval, who has been very involved in transportation issues, will correct me if I am wrong, but this is the third time this bill has been introduced.

I also recall that the leader of the Bloc Québécois sincerely hoped that this bill would be a priority in the previous Parliament. And we would have been happy to make amendments to it. The bill could be greatly improved. We could go much further. At least it was a starting point, and for the first time we had a bill stating that the Canadian Transportation Agency, a quasi-judicial body, had conciliation and arbitration authority and could receive complaints from members of the public experiencing all sorts of problems. Obviously, we are concerned.

Mr. Speaker, do I have one or two minutes left?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

You have less than a minute left.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I feel that we must beef up clause 29 of the bill and define what we expect in the way of reasonable changes.

I think we have to beef up this bill. In conclusion, I repeat, we need to give the Canadian Transportation Agency more muscle.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague from Hochelaga for bringing attention to the nuisance caused by the railway in terms of noise.

Earlier, others mentioned problems regarding the fumes and vibration from the railway. As a member of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, I will certainly take these things into account when we prepare amendments to this bill.

However, I want to point out that, in its declaration of principle, this bill takes into account, for the first time, protecting the environment. Nonetheless, the environment is limited to this single declaration and there is no mention of any enforcement or restriction or any reference to the Kyoto protocol, which the government does not even want to respect even though Canada is already a signatory to the protocol,

I want to know what my colleague thinks of this approach: a mere declaration of principle, with no reference to the restrictions or the programs that the government has yet to implement. Does he think it is democratic to add such a clause with no scope or restriction?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to thank my hon. colleague for his involvement at committee. If I am not mistaken, transport is the fourth most important department here, in Ottawa. It has its work cut out.

I do not mean the government any disrespect when I say that it lacks backbone and is rather insensitive and indifferent when it comes to environmental protection. I am stating a fact. It is clear that Canadians and Quebeckers will judge this government on its extremely negative record with respect to the environment . Never before has a government had so little backbone where environmental matters are concerned. It is obvious that we cannot rely on the leadership of the current environment minister, who is an international laughing stock. Canada has lost any way, shape or form of credibility it might have once enjoyed in various international forums in connection with the Kyoto protocol.

Why is a policy statement useful? Because, in the event of court challenges, the judiciary would have a clearer picture of the lawmaker's intention. We always hope that bills will escape challenge, but that is nonetheless a power that some of our fellow citizens have. It comes with democracy. Living under the rule of law means that the laws put in place under various parliaments can be challenged.

Naturally, it would be especially great—as something binding on the government and eventually the courts of law—if reference was made to the Kyoto protocol, this international treaty about which a very wide consensus has been achieved in Quebec. Perhaps our colleague could put forward a motion asking the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie to testify as an expert witness. His knowledge of the issue is so comprehensive that we could only benefit from his insight. I suggest that he invites the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, who is the Bloc Québécois' green conscience. In Quebec, the values of environmental protection and sustainable development are at the top of the list of collective concerns.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I refer to new clause 5(b), which speaks to strategic public intervention, only if it is necessary, for socio-economic and environmental outcomes, but it does not reduce the inherent advantages of one transportation medium over the other.

I like what I have heard from the Bloc on the issues surrounding improving the environmental conduct of the railway. We have to look at road transportation as well. The idling of large semi-trailers is endemic across the western and northern parts of Canada. There are very viable cheap technological solutions to this. This question should be answered for all manner of transportation.

What is my colleague's point of view on this?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our colleague has done a good job of understanding what we stand for as parliamentarians. We have always supported public transit. The member for Jonquière introduced a bill, as did the member for Longueuil.

We will do everything in our power to support a bill on this issue. I am somewhat proud of the fact that I do not have a car. I use public transit, and I am no worse off for it.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, has a lot in common with a bill introduced by the previous government, but it covers only part of what was in that bill.

However—and I will emphasize this from the very beginning of my presentation—some of the improvements in this bill justify our voting in favour of it.

First of all, it gives mass transit companies the right to use railways when freight transportation networks decide not to use them. Until now, transit companies did not have the right to use these lines to expand public and rail transportation networks, particularly in cities.

I think this major improvement is also an element of the transportation improvement policy we need to develop, especially in our large cities, to improve the environment. This measure would also require fiscal incentives.

This morning, the Standing Committee on Finance heard presentations by the Canadian Urban Transit Association. The association said that the government should make ongoing, long-term commitments and invest in public transit. If the government acts on this recommendation and incorporates it into the bill as it now stands, public transit and commuter rail will expand and ridership will increase. Ultimately, this will mean less pollution.

This is an interesting proposal, particularly since it will also stimulate economic development. When public passenger service providers exercise this right, they will need to purchase locomotives and rail cars. Not only large cities, but rural areas as well can benefit from such investments.

For example, in my riding, the Bombardier plant that will manufacture the cars for the Montreal subway will also be able to manufacture rail cars. This type of action would be part of a structured rather than piecemeal approach. We are glad that the current bill provides for this, but more is needed. That said, this improvement deserves to be supported on balance.

The other worthwhile improvement concerns noise. As a member from a rural area, I have heard many times from small municipalities that have problems with whistles and other noise associated with the rolling stock currently in use, a situation they find both unsatisfactory and extremely frustrating. What the bill proposes is not ideal, but it would achieve a better balance between the interests of the community and those of the carrier.

Let us hope that the Canadian Transportation Agency, with its new mandate, will be able to improve the situation so that people in some communities no longer have to put up with excessive noise.

I hope that when the bill is examined in committee, we will be able to extend the Transportation Agency's decision-making authority to other nuisances such as oil spills and the like. Two significant improvements have been made.

I would have liked to see this government maintain VIA Rail's expanded mandate, as planned by the previous government, for it represented a valuable tool to improve the quality of the environment by offering rapid rail services, for example. This alternative could also contribute to improved air quality, since it pollutes less than cars or planes. Moreover, it would have given VIA Rail the opportunity to diversify its products, which could have been interesting. We are told that the government is still studying this project. Let us hope it comes to fruition.

In addition, offering rail services promotes the use of equipment made in Quebec or in Canada and, at the same time, still contributes to improving the quality of the environment. I see this as another positive aspect.

What this bill is missing, and what especially affects me, is something to address railway accidents and what happened a few years ago in Sainte-Hélène-de-Kamouraska in my riding, and in Montmagny the year before my arrival as the member for this area.

There were some accidents and we realize that the safety network is inadequate, either because there are not enough investigators funded to implement the necessary corrective measures or because there is not enough pressure on the companies who own the networks. We are left to accept a network that has many negative results and risks of accidents that could cause serious environmental damage. In Montmagny, it was very dangerous when a train spilled its chemical load into the river. The same thing happened in Sainte-Hélène and we were just barely able to prevent a serious ecological disaster.

In this bill, I would have liked to have seen some measures to tighten regulations, monitor companies more closely and make it possible to take action when corporate responses are inadequate. Since being privatized, CN has operated within the existing legislative framework and has not adopted safety measures that exceed those imposed by the government. We live in a competitive world. It is government's role to ensure that the company's operations are carried out safely. In this regard, there are some gaps that should have been filled by this bill but have not.

I hope that the government will introduce another bill to remedy this situation. If legislation is not considered, then at least increase the budget for the inspection service so that it will be taken seriously by the major companies that operate the railway network.

Bill C-11 reintroduces certain proposals made by the former government, and some are positive. The bill also touches on various aspects of the air transport sector.

This afternoon, I wish to focus on the railway network. In Quebec and Canada, as we know, the popularity of our railway network has been very cyclical and 20, 15 and even 10 years ago it was not keeping up with the times. With the advent of containers and environmental concerns, it is possible to develop transportation that fulfills the requirements of sustainable development. The measures proposed today, particularly those affecting transportation companies, are interesting and positive.

We are pleased to see that this bill speaks to the noise issue, which is about decreasing one type of pollution. Therefore, the Bloc Québécois intends to support the bill. It also intends to propose amendments pertaining to, among other things, rulings and decisions regarding noise. Local authorities could be given sufficient powers to obtain satisfactory decisions and to provide a better balance of power in those cases where corporations are too powerful.

In view of the overall context, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this legislation and will seek to improve it in committee, in clause by clause study, after witnesses have been heard.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member opposite is always concerned about farmers in Quebec, but there is a clause in the bill in which the new government has really sold out western prairie grain producers. Clause 43 of the bill breaks the agreement that was made by the previous government with the Farmer Rail Car Coalition. In other words, the new government basically sold out to big rail, which it is also doing with the Canadian Wheat Board. It is selling out to big grain.

I wonder if the member from the Bloc Québécois would have any comment on that. Would he be concerned about western farmers and the approach of the new government which is basically undermining farmers' marketing power and their ability to have some control over their own destiny by taking ownership of the railway hopper cars? Instead, the new government broke the agreement made by the previous Liberal government.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that was my angle in looking at the possibility of studying this bill in committee.

I think it will be appropriate to hear witnesses at that time, determine what might be the best solution ultimately and see if the scope of the current legislation covers that and how this should be done in the future.

It is obvious, however, that this bill must not be made to create impediments to agriculture in Quebec and Canada. There are already enough complex situations and enough outside competition. We know what is hanging over the heads of our producers. Let us hope that we will not make things worse for them and that the legislation resulting from this bill will adequately meet their needs and support agricultural development.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Questions and comments. Resuming debate. Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

Emergency Management Act

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

moved that Bill C-12, An Act to provide for emergency management and to amend and repeal certain Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to be here today to support the bill. I have some firsthand knowledge of emergency situations, having been a young police officer when a horrific tornado struck my community some 25 years ago and without a plan it certainly left us in dire straits.

Bill C-12 will bring much needed improvements to our existing emergency management legislation. The bill, which would create the Emergency Management Act, would strengthen the federal government's capacity to coordinate response to major emergencies.

For one thing, it would clarify the roles and responsibilities setting out the role of the Minister of Public Safety to exercise leadership for emergency management activities for the Government of Canada.

It would recognize emergency management in an evolving risk environment, and would require the collective efforts of all governments, industries and non-governmental organizations. It would also recognize that modern emergency management includes a full spectrum of action: prevention, mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery.

It would introduce the reality of critical infrastructure, which relates to the facilities and services that require protection against natural or intentional threats.

These reforms would help keep Canada's emergency preparedness and response capabilities remain in step with our fast changing threat environment.

As my hon. colleagues know, Canada's emergency management activities are currently governed under the Emergency Preparedness Act legislation that was passed in 1988.

It would be no exaggeration to say that, in the intervening 17 years, very much has changed, the kinds of threats we face, the things that are threatened, and the way we deal with those threats.

I do not want to suggest that Canadians are unprotected now. On the contrary, this new government will continue to build relationships with its partners in the provinces and territories, the private sector, NGOs, and the entire emergency management community to help protect Canadians from any and all threats.

Even so, in the modern context, there are shortcomings in the statutory foundation for emergency management activities. Addressing these issues would further strengthen the federal government's capacity to carry out its national leadership role.

In the next few minutes I will outline the important changes that the emergency management act would bring.

Canadians face a range of risks, and always have. There have always been natural disasters: storms, earthquakes, floods, fires, drought, and tornadoes, as I mentioned. However, terrorist and criminal attacks were not invented on September 11, 2001. We have always been vulnerable to people bent on doing us harm.

While risks have always been with us, the scope and magnitude has changed. Globalization, heightened world tensions, even climate change, have introduced new perils. Think only of today's anxiety about a global viral pandemic, in order to understand how quickly a local scare has the potential to evolve into a wide scale emergency.

That is why the proposed emergency management act prescribes an all hazards approach. In planning for disaster, we must consider any and all threats to our safety and security.

Just as we broaden our understanding of risk, so must we accept that a contemporary society like Canada has an unprecedented range of targets vulnerable to threats.

Emergency management has always been about protecting and rescuing people, helping to evacuate endangered communities, strengthening defences for homes and other property, as well as providing financial assistance in recovery efforts.

In that respect, nothing would change. The legislation would, however, provide the Government of Canada with a robust statutory foundation flexible enough to respond to the evolving threat environment. In particular, it would help to ensure that government address the full range of facilities and services that are critical to the smooth functioning of a modern and interconnected society.

I am referring here to critical infrastructure, everything from financial institutions and transportation systems to hospitals, manufacturing industries, waste water treatment installations and power plants. I am also including the information and communication technologies that are essential to the smooth operation of all of these other sectors.

In working toward a more comprehensive and integrated framework for emergency management activity, ministers will be required to develop emergency plans based on common guidelines.

Bill C-12 would make federal ministers explicitly accountable for identifying risks to critical infrastructure. Moreover, to encourage infrastructure owners and operators to cooperate with federal planners, the bill would for the first time protect the confidentiality of specific information concerning their vulnerabilities that was shared in confidence with the government.

In addition to the responsibilities assigned to each minister within his or her own jurisdiction, the proposed emergency management act sets out the public safety minister's responsibilities in respect of emergency management.

The bill before us would further clarify and elaborate on the minister's responsibilities in coordinating roles during times of major emergencies. As was learned from hurricane Katrina, leadership, coordination and seamless emergency management are essential to saving lives. The government operations centre that would provide around the clock monitoring and coordination in the event of an emergency would serve as a focal point for federal coordination in the event of major emergencies.

The emergency management act would set out the minister's responsibility to coordinate emergency management activities across the federal government, with provincial governments, non-governmental organizations and the private sector. In the same spirit of cooperation, the minister would also be charged with promoting a common approach to emergency preparedness. That includes encouraging all parties to work toward a common approach to critical infrastructure in terms of reliability and security.

In conclusion, when it comes to Canada's approach to emergency management, the legislation's title underscores one other vital innovation. Given the new environment in which we live under an expanded range of vulnerabilities, it is no longer enough for Canada to simply react to emergencies. Instead, we need a comprehensive systematic and proactive approach. That is why Bill C-12 is about emergency management in the broadest sense. Indeed, the bill defines the term as the prevention and mitigation of, preparedness for, response to and recovery from emergencies.

It is the duty of government to balance the need to prepare its citizens with reasonable depictions of risk so as to not unnecessarily alarm people. It is our job to describe the risk in realistic terms and more importantly to put in place the means and mechanisms to address it. That is what the bill would do and that is why I would urge my hon. colleagues to pass it without delay.

Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions and I think you would find that there would be unanimous consent to the following motion. I move:

That six members of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics be authorized to attend a seminar on “Access to Information” in Ottawa, on September 25 and 26, 2006 and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-12, An Act to provide for emergency management and to amend and repeal certain Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Emergency Management Act

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I can say from some personal experience as a mayor of a city that has been through a number of emergencies in the past, and I think of the September 11 landing of 14 transatlantic flights in my municipality and also an ice storm or two, that emergency preparedness is something that is very much at the centre of what people expect their governments to do. This is the theme of my question.

The legislation is well intended and, frankly, merits very close consideration. It follows on some previous proposed Liberal legislation. That is not the only reason I say it is well intended. Where the rubber hits the road is the question I have for my friend. How is it contemplated that this bill will ensure that there are coordinating efficiencies between the three levels of government?

Believe it or not, the Liberal government felt very strongly that municipalities were the third order of government. Many of them have their own emergency preparedness organization plans. My municipality did. It worked very closely with the province and in some cases the federal government. This bill talks about the capital m minister having responsibility “by coordinating, among government institutions and in cooperation with the provinces and other entities, emergency management activities”.

The question, simply put, is: How heavy is the club? How much can the federal government do to coordinate such activities over such a broad spectrum and how intrusive might it be to some of the very well thought out and good working plans in place in some of the provinces? I wonder if my friend might comment on that.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member asked an excellent question and has raised a couple of issues. Today we recognize that emergencies are not necessarily what we thought they were a number of years ago. We would not have contemplated 25 years ago that 14 aircraft landing in one community was an emergency, but we recognize today that is an emergency. There are a lot of people to be taken care of and a whole raft of issues. Being prepared for emergencies is obviously the first step and we have moved a long way, as he recognizes in his municipality.

He will also recognize that the federal government is in no position to impose its will on the other two levels of government. The provinces in most cases have requested and in some cases I expect demanded of the municipalities to prepare emergency plans, but the idea behind this bill is that the Government of Canada will be there as the senior level of government that will have a plan in place.

In fact, he is absolutely right that this is a bill that has been around and federally we have not had the umbrella that we have needed for some time. This is an updating of where we were, more importantly, to bring us into the current age with the current threats with respect to emergency preparedness. For the most part, we would welcome building with the provinces and municipalities in a total umbrella of emergency preparedness.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to my hon. colleagues' question and answer.

It is legitimate to want to consider emergency plans, because of the need to foresee as best we can situations that might arise, be it the flood we had in Lac Saint-Jean or any other similar situation that calls for a rapid reaction.

However, the parliamentary secretary's answer fuels doubts and makes one fear potential problems. Are major federal encroachments on provincial jurisdictions not to be expected? There is a clause in the bill that provides that the plan cannot be implemented without the agreement of the provinces. But this must not become a source of blackmail: because the money is in Ottawa, the other side absolutely needs it to be the key level.

That is what the parliamentary secretary's answer leads us to believe. I would like him to clarify this point, so that we can be sure that jurisdictions will be respected in establishing emergency plans.

I am not necessarily talking about every step. The global operation and planning must be carried out, taking into consideration the responsibilities at each level and ensuring that each one is in a position to assume its responsibilities under such circumstances.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if the member opposite looks at clause 3 of the act, it indicates that the minister is responsible for exercising leadership among government institutions and in cooperation with the provinces and other entities.

Clause 6(3) of the act states, “A government institution”, which is a federal government institution:

--may not respond to a provincial emergency unless the government of the province requests assistance or there is an agreement with the province that requires or permits the assistance.

The act itself is very clear that the provinces have their own autonomy. This is only to provide assistance when they request it. The act is clear in its intent that it is to provide a national framework for the federal government to work with the provinces and other entities. I do not think for one minute that the member opposite should think that the federal government would roll into his community or any other community in Canada unless it had been requested to do so by those provinces.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to engage in the debate today on the bill dealing with emergencies and the federal response to emergencies.

The bill actually replicates a bill that was introduced into the House in the last Parliament, with a couple of tweaks here and there I guess, but the bill is recognized as being needed. Those needs arise from the evolution of public awareness and government awareness that the prospect of significant emergencies and disasters, and perhaps exacerbated by the possibility of a terrorist incident that would be the equivalent of a disaster, that requires the federal government, as well as the provinces and municipalities, to be ready, able and willing to deal with these types of emergencies. They evolve out of climate change, natural disasters, just bad things that can happen in the world today.

The world media certainly make us aware of all of those things. We would like to think that Canada will be lucky and avoid the huge earthquake, the meteorite from space that drops the huge flood, the terrible hurricane and tornado, but these things do happen. It is worth noting that most of these events, when they do occur, would normally be seen as falling within provincial jurisdiction. I will address that later in my remarks because there is a practical and legal issue that arises from the bill.

However, the bill would allow the federal government to refocus and better coordinate the organization of its response to emergencies. Perhaps we can all note that there is arguably a difference between what is called an emergency and what we might regard as a security related incident. They are not always the same. Most of what the bill would deal with is emergencies involving natural disasters with some component of a man-made contribution in it.

First, I want to note the reference to the leadership and mandate of the public security emergency preparedness minister. This is a concept that the government has been slow to get to. The predecessor of the PSEP minister was the solicitor general and over time it became apparent that some federal minister had to take responsibility for a federal government response to emergencies.

In the old days, I think Canadians felt that the minister of national defence could probably handle that. Canadians have always had a feeling that its armed forces were capable of rendering assistance wherever it was really needed. The armed forces have jumped in from the beginning of Canada to assist Canadians, as have other government institutions. However, as with other things in life, emergencies and natural disasters have evolved and become more complex I suppose, and we simply needed a government minister, aside from the Department of National Defence, who could coordinate these things. Now it would be the federal minister of public safety and emergency preparedness. That is one thing the bill does.

The second thing worth noting is the imposition of a protection for private information of third parties in the hands of government. That information would have been supplied to government as part of the preparation of an emergency management plan. It really is, in my view, quite reasonable that third parties who supply that information to government to assist in the creation of an emergency management plan should have that information protected within government and not have it accessible through the Access to Information Act. That is quite a reasonable proposal and I am not aware of any difficulties in law with that.

The third thing I would like to point out relates to something I mentioned earlier. There is a provision in the bill, I believe it is clause 7(c), that allows the federal government by regulation to declare a provincial emergency to be of concern to the federal government. I take it from this that it is the intention of the bill to put a federal thumb print on what is a provincial emergency. I think the committee that looks at this bill will need to ask whether that particular provision is relying on the peace, order and good government section of our Constitution, section 91. I think it does.

Clause 7(c) involving the regulations is also related to clause 6(3) of the bill. Clause 6(3) states:

A government institution may not respond to a provincial emergency unless the government of the province requests assistance....

That seems to say that the federal government will not get itself into a provincial emergency. The wording is important because it refers to a provincial emergency. However, if the federal government, in which legislation has paramountcy to provincial legislation, has a regulation that says a provincial matter is of concern to the federal government, that matter may cease to be simply a provincial emergency and may become a matter of concern to the federal government. This is a constitutional issue and I am not too sure that the statute has made it clear in its wording and I am not too sure that we here have taken note of that implication.

The concept of the federal government declaring a provincial emergency to be of concern to the federal government should be distinguished from what we normally refer to here as aid to the civil power by the armed forces. If there is a problem, the province requests the federal government for assistance from the armed forces and the armed forces are made available to the provincial jurisdiction. That is a separate mechanism and concept from what we are dealing with here.

I suggest that the bill does create something new that should be addressed and clarified if necessary because as I stand here today I suppose I am not prepared to say that it is real clear from the statute that the intent of clause 7(c) as it interrelates with clause 6(3) is exactly the way I have described it. That has to be clarified.

What are some other issues in the bill? Clause 5 raises the matter of dealing with emergencies involving the United States of America. We have a long common border. We probably have a border with Denmark and with Russia but we certainly have enough border interface with the United States to make this a matter of concern. It does have a place in legislation. It is a picky issue perhaps but I think I should note it for the record.

Clause 5 would authorize the development of what is called a joint emergency management plan. The other clauses of the bill deal with developing emergency management plans. This clause refers to a joint emergency management plan, which is okay, but it does not say with whom the joint plan should be arranged. It just says with United States authorities. It does not mention whether it should be with state jurisdictions in the United States, municipal jurisdictions or U.S. federal agencies. It just talks about United States authorities. That may be a concept that is a little too naive for our purposes here in doing legislation. This can be looked at later as well.

However, there is another clause of the bill that deals with the making of regulations and that is on the issue of whether we have any statutory jurisdiction in the United States of America. Of course we do not. That would involve an extraterritorial application of our law. However, it would not prevent us from developing an emergency management plan, but does it involve Canada spending money, resourcing, in the United States?

Clause 7 of the bill creates the authority to make regulations and it seems to indicate that we anticipate spending money in the United States of America. For example, subclause 7(b) says regulations “respecting the use of federal civil resources in response to civil emergencies”. Does that include assistance in response to U.S.A. emergencies? If we do respond to an emergency management plan that we have developed with the U.S.A., are we just talking about the border, or are we talking Laredo, Texas on the border with Mexico? Are we talking about an emergency similar to the hurricane damage in New Orleans? Are we talking about a tsunami in Hawaii? It is not clear if there are any constraints on this extraterritorial spending of resources.

In addition, subclause 7(a) says that the government may make orders or regulations “respecting the preparation, maintenance, testing and implementation of emergency management plans”. Emergency management plans are referred to in the bill, but there is the second type of emergency management plan called the joint emergency management plan, found in clause 5, dealing with the U.S.A.

I am suggesting, on a very technical basis, that if it is intended that the minister or the governor in council make regulations about joint emergency management plans, that should also be set out in the statute. The way it is worded in the bill it is evidently a separate concept.

This too can be dealt with, if necessary, at the committee level. I am sure members would like to debate that one for 5 or 10 minutes. It is better to fix these problems now than to have a lack of clarity and have issues arise later with our American friends, or our Canadian provincial friends or our municipalities. Also, we never know when the official opposition will raise an objection to the government's actions.

Those are most of my comments on the bill.

There is a related matter of dealing with our border relations with the U.S.A.. I want to make note of that because it may have implications for the bill.

Our joint efforts with the United States include border security, intelligence gathering and counterterrorism operations. This does not always happen at the border. I would point out that although we have integrated border enforcement teams at work now through much of the Canada-U.S. border system, and those integrated border enforcement teams operate very well, do a good job and involve our police, their police, our agencies and their agencies, we also have integrated national security enforcement teams. They do not operate at the border. They operate in Canada's larger cities.

Those joint operations bring together the RCMP, CSIS, municipal and provincial police, some Canadian ministries and American representatives from the FBI, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the U.S. Border Patrol and generally now the Department of Homeland Security. These institutions and liaison people are at work in Canada, which raises issues. Just as in emergency preparedness and resourcing of cross-border emergencies, it raises issues about efficacy of spending and, in some cases, issues involving scrutiny for civil liberties.

We have not yet in the House nailed down, with precision, how we will take steps to ensure that these new constructs, put together for public safety and security, are properly operating, spending efficaciously, operating within the law and are not unduly threatening to civil liberties. This is a huge unreconnoitred piece. These new constructs have just come up in the last three or four years and we have not done our homework.

I know there was a bill in the last Parliament, Bill C-81, that had developed, with all-party consensus, support for a new construct for a committee of parliamentarians who would have access to the appropriate classified material in order to scrutinize these types of operations. That bill has not been reintroduced yet. I believe it is the intention of the minister to do so.

I and a number of members have worked hard on this envelope for a number of years and we would like to see that bill introduced quickly so Parliament may respond and get on with its important work on behalf of Canadians.

I look forward to seeing the bill referred to committee to deal with these relatively technical issues to which I have made reference, all of it being for the purpose of providing better planning, foresight and ultimately protection for Canadians for seen and unforeseen emergencies should they arise.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I note that my colleague talked about clause 5 and the relationship between Canada and the United States. He did not talk much about clause 6(2) which states:

Each minister shall include an emergency management plan

(d) in the case of war or other armed conflict, the programs, arrangements or other measures that

(ii) support the Canadian Forces and the armed forces of Canada's allies in the conduct of military operations.

(iii) contribute to meeting Canada's military and civil wartime obligations to its allies...

My understanding is that this is a Liberal bill that has been brought forward. Perhaps my hon. colleague would like to comment on the rather broad nature of that commitment to the efforts of another country's military.