Debates of Sept. 21st, 2006

Emergency Management Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take authorship of the bill, but I do want to draw the member's attention to the proviso that these clauses are there to deal with the eventuality of war or armed conflict. In the event that war or armed conflict were to evolve, this would not be the jurisdiction of the Minister of Public Safety. It would be within the jurisdiction of the cabinet, the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Foreign Affairs. This simply allows the Minister of Public Safety, in advance of any such contingency, to make appropriate planning, to put emergency plans in place for those types of contingencies that may evolve out of a war scenario.

We actually have not had one in Canada since 1812, but one cannot foresee the unforeseeable, and that is the reason for that wording. I do not see any practical eventuality that would have us engaging in an armed conflict in the North American continent that would allow the minister to deal with an internal Canadian or cross-border situation as an emergency.

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

Mr. Speaker, if I understood my colleague correctly, he referred to clause 5 and asked about coordinating responses with our neighbours to the south in emergency situations.

A few years ago we might not have contemplated that, but last year, with Hurricane Katrina, we had a coordination of response from our people to assist the American emergency responders. There have been other situations where a number of our utilities in Canada have assisted with Americans. I suspect there have been instances where the reverse is also true and we would expect to have their help.

Does my friend view clause 5 the same as I do, that it is a beneficial situation for both countries to be able to assist one another in states of emergency?

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

Mr. Speaker, yes. Most Canadians would be pretty happy to assist our American cousins in an emergency and they would expect just about the same for us from them.

The difficulty is that unless the statute takes the step to put a minister in charge of this, we will not have a person in charge of putting an emergency response plan in place. This clause would allow a particular minister here to carry out the work of preparing emergency management plans in a joint way with our American neighbours, as appropriate and when appropriate.

The issue of spending Canadian money south of the border, or west of the border if we are looking at Alaska, could be an issue, but I will leave that for another time. However, the general thrust of making plans to deal with emergencies and assisting our neighbour I am prepared to accept. The wording of the clause is pretty broad, but it would be naive to not address it in a statute like this.

The nickel and dime details about the spending and the resourcing will probably be made by cabinet, but the statute should be sufficient to at least get us on the page when these unfortunate emergencies arise.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary has already been asked the question about the relationship with municipalities under the joint emergency management plan. I take it the committee will be looking further into that. From my experience, municipalities have very comprehensive and integrated plans and they should be part of a comprehensive joint management plan.

I am sure many who are watching this debate have also been reminded that pandemics and bioterrorism are in fact very immediate risks and our constituents are very concerned. This legislation does not talk about that.

I am aware that the member has a very broad knowledge on that whole area. With respect to the matter of pandemic or bioterrorism, would he comment on whether he is satisfied that legislation comes to grips with that or should the committee broaden the investigation and the consultation on this legislation to encompass that very serious risk?

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

Mr. Speaker, on the issue of dealing with municipalities, the federal government realizes that municipalities are creatures of the province. Clause 4(1)(f) deals rather delicately with that in an appropriate way. It states that the federal government will coordinate the activities of government institutions relating to emergency management with those of the provinces, and supporting the emergency management activities of the provinces, and through the provinces, those of local authorities. The province is in charge.

On the second matter involving health emergencies, the member has raised a very good question. As I read the proposed bill, its wording is more than sufficient to cover emergencies that would involve health issues, a virus, a pandemic. However, I believe there is other federal legislation that would also be brought to bear in terms of those health emergencies. There are huge regulation-making authorities available to the federal government on the health risk side. The member asked a very good question and the interrelationship of the other legislation dealing with health emergencies to the present legislation which is more general perhaps should be reconnoitred by the committee to ensure there is no overlap or any discontinuity that would impair the effectiveness of this new bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, knowing the expertise of the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River, I would like to ask him a brief question. I know that he is a scholar, even in constitutional matters.

The summary of the bill declares the government’s intention; it says:

This enactment provides for a national emergency management system that strengthens Canada’s capacity to protect Canadians.

Is he satisfied that this bill does not encroach upon provincial jurisdictions?

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

Mr. Speaker, I understand the member's question and the suggestion that there could be an impairment of provincial jurisdiction by application of some federal authority. That risk has always been here in Canada. I see from the way this statute is written that it is absolutely not the intention of the statute to do so. It is written in every case to avoid trampling on any provincial jurisdiction. It bends over backwards to avoid doing that, with the exception of the one issue I did raise, the one issue involving clause 6(3), where there is the possibility of a 7(c) practical override of clause 6(3). I will have to leave that to the committee. I do not have enough time to go back into it here.

I agree with the intent of the member's question. The bill is drafted to be sensitive to what he is suggesting. With the one exception, I think the federal jurisdiction is just fine under the Constitution.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to speak to Bill C-12. This is a moment I have been eagerly awaiting, for I am well aware that in the world in which we now live, the issue of emergencies certainly demands the attention of legislators.

Just earlier, I was pondering the fact that, even in the 1800s, people were trying to regulate emergencies with the Quarantine Act. Why did they attempt to use this act in part to regulate emergencies? Because disease was surely the greatest threat to human communities, to the human condition about which Malraux spoke to us with such talent. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you are an enthusiast of Malraux. I know your erudition, and even your epicurean side. Of course, if we are talking about the 16th, 17th or 18th centuries, the spread of disease could not possibly be compared with the SARS crisis that we experienced, for example. And for once, the federal government was in a field of jurisdiction that belonged to it alone, under a class of subject enumerated in the Constitution.

When we speak of emergencies, the word “emergency” is in itself open to many meanings. What does it mean when we speak of emergencies? Are we talking about disease, the unleashed forces of nature, public transit, natural catastrophes, the overflowing of the Red River, the pollution in the big cities, terrorist attacks? Terrorism is a real fact of our collective life.

If I may digress, for a parliament and a parliamentarian, the end can never justify the means. One can never say, on account of some context one considers extraordinary, that one is going to take certain actions prejudicial to personal freedoms. In any case, you know how the Bloc Québécois is. If there is one party in this House that could hold a set of scales in its hands, with a centre of gravity that can balance human rights with necessary protection of the community, that party is surely the Bloc Québécois. How could we not be disturbed by Bill C-24, and its successor Bill C-36 on anti-terrorist measures. The government was trying to plagiarize the previous government, and it plagiarized certain provisions of the Patriot Act, tabled by the Bush administration. Incidentally, it will be with great interest that we shall read the judgment to be rendered shortly on the security certificates.

I know that some of my caucus colleagues, and in particular our immigration and public safety critics, have a lot of reasons to be worried. I would ask you the question, Mr. Speaker. Is it acceptable, in a country that adheres to the rule of law, for a person to be subject to arrest without warrant, arbitrarily detained, and not have access to the complete evidence in his or her court file? Do we not learn in our law schools that it is important to have a just and fair trial? Are we not in the post-Stinchcombe era? The Supreme Court has given judgment on this point. My colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin is aware of that. Stinchcombe requires that all evidence be disclosed. That is surprising, because Stinchcombe involved a tax fraud matter, if I recall correctly.

In any case emergencies cover a range of situations: SARS, overflowing rivers, terrorism, or mass transit.

We know that in some democracies, the evil hand of certain groups has used mass transit to spread toxic substances. Plainly it is a concern of governments, I would even say their duty, to have evacuation and emergency plans.

Let us ask the question: is this primarily the responsibility of the federal government? That question arises in the case before us. This is not a case involving quarantine, an epidemic or virology.

The bill says:

This enactment provides for a national emergency management system that strengthens Canada’s capacity to protect Canadians.

Obviously, when we read the bill, we can say that it is reasonable for the federal government, in the departments for which that government is responsible, to have an emergency plan. We therefore understand that it is reasonable for there to be a plan for public safety, health, national defence, or any other example that my colleagues may bring to my attention.

Closer to home, I know that on Parliament Hill, the Board of Internal Economy, of which the various party whips are members, thinks about how to ensure that the Hill is safer. There have been very few unfortunate incidents, but still, there have been a few.

In fact, there is a new Sergeant-at-Arms in the House. I would like to wish him success in the responsibilities of his position. He is the person who is responsible for the safety of parliamentarians.

In the British parliamentary tradition, the distance between the opposition and the government is two and a half sword lengths. Why? Because when Parliament was first created, when the institution of Parliament was created in the United Kingdom, the monarch stood in fear of members of Parliament. That is the source of the tradition, when the Speaker is elected, of dragging him or her by the arm while being met with resistance. That is because some of the speakers, in some of the Parliaments of Great Britain, who were called burgesses, were beheaded when the king did not agree with them.

So as not to wander too far afield, let us come back to the Sergeant-at-Arms. He is responsible for parliamentarians’ safety, and in emergencies he must arrange for the Hill to be evacuated.

I would like to give you an example of a traumatic event that I experienced personally. Every member of this House is familiar with my sturdiness, physical strength and self-discipline. Then there is the President of the United States, who thinks he is the master of any house he happens to be in. When President Bush visited the Hill, some parliamentarians, including me, were not allowed access to the Hill. My colleague from Saint-Lambert was also denied access to the Hill. Why? Not because the constables prevented us from entering. After all, their kindness is known to us all. They were not the ones who denied us entry. It was security personnel outside Parliament who stopped us; they went about it quite rudely, I might add. Such events prompt us to think about how we might react in an emergency that forced us to evacuate the building rapidly.

I know that Board of Internal Economy members, including the whips, have discussed this issue.

So, yes, we have to have emergency measures in place in our large communities, especially in big cities. Emergencies can be caused by natural disasters, terrorist attacks on public transportation or, of course, disease. Obviously, we do not deal with disease as we did in the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries, but imagine the impact of a virus spreading through our communities. Even in our modern society, we have come to realize that hospitals are not always a safe haven. We do not think that going to the hospital can make us sick. I feel comfortable talking about this before the member for Québec because I know she is as healthy as a horse, but people sure do not expect to get sick when they go to the hospital.

We recently learned that some hospitals in Canada were vectors of contamination. This is one of the emergencies for which we must plan.

Although the Bloc Québécois agrees with this bill in principle, we have some concerns. First is the issue of respecting provincial responsibilities. A national emergency should never mean there is just one government. We are long past the time of the Rowell-Sirois commission. We are not in an apprehended war situation. As elected members of the Bloc Québécois, as representatives of the people of Quebec, we must never act as though there were just one government.

The National Assembly, whose first speaker was Mr. Panet—if I recall correctly—is one of the oldest Parliaments in North America. A number of years ago, it passed its own public safety plan. And who was the author of this important plan that respects decentralization, a plan whose goal was to have the regional county municipalities, the municipalities and the health care system work together? When we think of emergencies, these are the players we want to see promote a common vision.

The National Assembly was the first francophone Parliament in North America. It was led by Speaker Panet and founded under the Constitutional Act, 1791, with ministerial responsibility introduced in 1848. It used to be referred to as the Salon de la race, but that expression is no longer used. It passed its public safety plan. We are most privileged to have among us the author of the plan, none other than the hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, who was the public safety minister at the time and who served the Government of Quebec well.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

We would appreciate it if members of the government were more careful with their tributes, Mr. Speaker, but it might come back to haunt them later.

The member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin shouldered his responsibilities and suggested a plan. I repeat that we understand perfectly well that this is the federal government's responsibility, as regards its own institutions and jurisdictions. That is what federalism is. If Gérald Beaudoin and Henri Brun, two eminent constitutionalists, were here, they would tell us that federalism has three defining characteristics: first, two levels of government, each one sovereign in its areas of jurisdiction; second, a constitution; and third, a forum for arbitration. What is the forum for arbitration in a constitutional state? It is the Supreme Court, whose appointment process we hope will undergo a sweeping reform. The former member for Charlesbourg, a brilliant mind who served this House well, made a motion two years ago, if I am not mistaken, to ensure that, for example, the National Assembly could submit a list in order to respect the true spirit of federalism. The Supreme Court Act provides for civil law judges on the court. Moreover, although it is not my intention to talk about this—I would hate to be called to order—I would say that more and more, we are approaching a unitary state. This is not the spirit of federalism. There were 33 Fathers of Confederation. Thing were different then, as hon. members will recall. But we had the conviction that there were two governments, each with its own jurisdiction.

Why is there an imbalance in the Canadian federation?

For example, do you think that the residual powers—all the powers that are not specifically conferred on a government—are the responsibility of the provinces? No. The federal government has responsibility for them. The day is fast approaching when Quebeckers will decide to leave that federation, but it not my intention to talk about that.

Bill C-12 asks the federal government to adopt an emergency management plan. This plan is expected to give powers to the different ministers concerned, because it will be at their level of responsibility. Sometimes, the focus will be more on public safety, sometimes on health, sometimes on the environment. This will depend on the situation.

The bill obliges the departments to establish principles and programs to develop emergency management plans for government institutions. We can live with that. They must also provide advice to government institutions respecting emergency management plans. That is a ministerial responsibility we can live with that. Under this bill, the departments must analyze and evaluate the prepared plans. We would hope to learn more about just what that means. They must coordinate the actions of the various federal institutions in an emergency, provide financial or other assistance to provinces that need it, and establish the necessary arrangements for the continuity of constitutional government in the event of an emergency. Now, that is worrisome. I do not know if my colleague, the hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, can see the look of concern on my face, but there is something very troublesome about the mention of the constitutional government and an emergency. We all know that the most significant intrusions have occurred in times of emergency.

Take, for example, tax points. Taxation, particularly personal income tax, was not intended to be permanent. If I am not mistaken, I believe it was Adélard Godbout who was Premier of Quebec at the time, a progressive Liberal typical of his time. We are all familiar with the terror that reigned at the time of the second world war. At the time, the wartime tax rental agreement was the expression used for transferring the personal income tax. In the end, what was meant to be temporary became permanent. Thus, it is very easy to speak of emergencies in a bill, but we have a certain responsibility in this regard.

We will therefore remain vigilant about the use of the word "emergency" and we do not agree that, under the pretence of an emergency, provincial jurisdictions should be encroached upon. I believe that the hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin will have something serious to say when the bill is referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

In conclusion, I cannot help but urge caution. We live in troubled times. Is the Arar affair not a good example of the prudence that should guide us as Parliamentarians?

We know quite well that, in the wake of September 2001, security certificates can give rise to excesses. Obviously, I will make the necessary distinctions. I do not wish people to think that I am not a nuanced person. I know that the emergencies we are talking about do not specifically include terrorist attacks, although such attacks could lead the federal government to take all manner of emergency measures. That is a possibility.

I believe that our responsibility is to maintain the appropriate balance between the rights of individuals and the security of the nation. Who wants to wind up with big brother in a totalitarian state where people are arrested without a warrant, searches are carried out, individuals are thrown in jail, and the principles of natural justice are violated? The Bloc Québécois has always been extremely vigilant in its protection of these principles.

Correct me if I am wrong but I believe we were the only party to vote against Bill C-36. However, I do not wish to offend the NDP. I do not remember how they voted. My colleagues could indicate if they think I am mistaken.

I would like to conclude by saying that we agree with the principle, that we understand that emergency situations can arise, but that we hope Quebec's jurisdiction will be respected when appropriate.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I know that my colleague is interested in matters dealing with sovereignty, of course, and I would ask him how he feels about a situation that we find ourselves in.

Due to emergency measures and due to measures taken by the United States, some members of Parliament find themselves unable to get a boarding pass to get on an airplane to fly on a domestic flight within their own country because some outside agency in the United States in fact will not allow them on an airplane.

Surely this is an affront to anyone's sense of sovereignty, no matter what that sense of sovereignty might be. It is an affront. It is an insult that we are subject to American law in this regard.

The solution, of course, is not to do away with airline safety measures. The solution is to have a Canadian list of our own. Hopefully Canadian members of Parliament would not wind up on that list. Would the member agree that it would not be an intrusion of jurisdiction to have a Canadian list put in place that would take care of this real or perceived threat?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a relevant question. This is the second time that our colleague has asked it today. I understand the emotional effect this matter has on him when he talks about it, and I also understand his frustration. If we define sovereignty as being the ability to pass laws, collect taxes and decide on our foreign policy, we do not expect, in our own country, to have to put up with a series of constraints like those our colleague is talking about. The Conservative government should model itself a little on Mr. Diefenbaker, who stood up to the United States. They used to call him the lion of the Prairies.

The Liberals put up some resistance, but the current Prime Minister seems to say to the Americans, “the same bed for the same dream,” although it is not possible. The power relationship that exists between the American and the Canadian peoples means that we cannot find it acceptable for the Americans to have excessive sovereignty over Canada.

I agree with my colleague on this matter.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as we are aware, this particular bill, Bill C-12, is ostensibly identical to the bill in the last Parliament of the Liberal government, Bill C-78. Therefore, of course, the Liberal caucus will be supporting Bill C-12. It is extremely important to Canada.

The member raised some very interesting points about jurisdictional issues where there are responsibilities that have been taken over by some jurisdictions. In fact, municipalities in other parts of the country may not have had the resources or whatever was needed to do certain things. It appears to me that there does not seem to be a clear indication of how we would get an integrated, coordinated effort right across the country in terms of the responsibilities of the various jurisdictions, whether they be provincial, municipal or regional or, indeed, whether they are the jurisdiction of the federal government as a whole.

I would think that this is an area in which it is going to take some significant work by the committee to establish what is out there already and whether there are standards that have been adopted for which all of the various municipalities or regions or, for that mattter, provinces have brought their preparedness plans up to that standard. Possibly the member would indicate whether he has any similar concerns.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a relevant question. I imagine that the member was referring to subclause 7(c), whose wording is generous, not to say incredibly generic. I would be the least surprised man in the world if the member fromMarc-Aurèle-Fortin took up his pen to draft an amendment that would eliminate this sort of looseness that means that we are not entirely clear who will be ensuring leadership and coordination.

In my opinion, the Bloc Québécois might actually present an amendment like the one suggested by our colleague. I also wish to take this opportunity to congratulate him on the excellent work he has done on the issue of fetal alcohol syndrome.

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

Mr. Speaker, I cannot say that I could follow all of my friend's original talk on this bill, but I do know that he has some concerns about the federal government getting into provincial concerns. I for one believe that there are a lot of safety provisions here.

As much as he has always strongly supported his own province and its autonomy, I suspect that if there were a natural disaster in the province of Quebec, he would also want the federal government to be there in many ways. I am sure the member is particularly in favour of subclause 7(d) where the federal government would provide funding with the minister's authorization.

I am wondering how he squares this whole issue. If we do not have such a bill that gives authority to the federal government to do certain things, how would we end up helping his province of which he is so proud?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I said at first that we are in favour of the principle of the bill. We understand very well that there may be emergency situations, but never would we wish to find ourselves in a situation in which the federal government intervened without being asked to do so by a province. There may be areas of collaboration to be established. We understand that very well. Viruses and natural disasters do not always respect borders.

It remains, however that it has been clearly established that the Government of Quebec is responsible for the health and the development of its territory. We therefore hope that it will be clearly established that the government would intervene in an emergency situation only at the request of the provinces concerned.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Western Arctic for a short question.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I do seem to get the short questions, but that is okay.

I am just going back to the questions I asked the Liberal member in reference to subclause 6(2)(d). I see the definition of war or other armed conflict is neither defined geographically nor qualitatively, so we have some issues there that need to be addressed in committee.

Then of course we mitigate the effects of foreign armed conflict on Canada, so we are suggesting armed conflict that really is not on our soil. The emergency measures plan would reference perhaps other things that occur in other parts of the world.

These things should be well outlined in any committee work. I would ask the member opposite to comment.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, I had planned to talk about these provisions. My colleague is quite right to be concerned. These are the kind of broad and generic definitions which we also found in the Anti-Terrorism Act. Quite like him, we are worried and we hope we can tighten up this much too loose definition.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-12.

Across the country there are probably communities that have no idea about the content of the bill, or the content of provincial legislation around emergency preparedness. However, over the last five or six years because of what has happened in Canada and abroad people are becoming much more aware and concerned about how the country, a province or a city would respond to an emergency.

An emergency has come to have almost no meaning now or an extremely broad meaning. At one stage in our history we all fairly well understood the word “emergency” but today emergency has a much broader concept than we have seen before. There are viruses, for example. This is a tough one and we have debated this around another piece of legislation. Part of the legislation states that the federal government would enter into an emergency plan if it was in its interest to do so. I understand the position of the Bloc.

Having been a former health minister and a nurse, I know that viruses, especially new viruses, permutate all the time and turn into viruses we have never seen before. We do not know how to treat them. Viruses do not have maps. They do not permutate and then look at a map and respect provincial borders. They move across borders very quickly.

I see the Minister of Health has just come in. I know that from his experience in Ontario he is more than aware of how viruses that we have not--

[An hon. member]

You can't comment on people coming in and out.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do apologize. It was my anxiousness to acknowledge the minister's previous experience.

The minister knows very well that viruses and new diseases do not recognize borders. So the concept of when a federal government decides it is in the best interests of Canadians to enter into a provincial emergency is going to continue to be a difficult one for everybody.

On the other hand, as we saw with SARS and some other viruses, they moved quickly across the country. We were not able to keep up with them, to get ahead of them, or even to recognize any trend of what is happening.

For me it raises one of the other issues around trends particularly in health emergency situations. Because there is no mandatory reporting on the part of the provinces to the federal government or to the health ministry if they see something happening, if they see a virus, it makes it even more difficult for us to see trends occurring across the country. That causes me some concern. The federal government might not even be able to see whether or not it is in its interest because a provincial government is not mandated to report if something is occurring in that province. That causes me some concern in terms of the federal government's ability to make an informed decision.

Some education is needed in this country regarding emergency preparedness. I do not think most people know who is responsible for emergency preparedness, whom they could count on and for what.

When my children first started school, they came home one day and told me that they had a drill. I asked them if all the children had managed to get out on time. They said that they did not leave the school that they went under their desks. In British Columbia not only do we have fire drills but we also have earthquake drills. Many of us have earthquake preparation kits in our homes and in our cars. This is very different from many other parts of the country, except for Quebec and Yukon where there are earthquake risks.

What is becoming of more concern to people is who does what, when, with whom, and under what circumstances. If this bill passes, there is a responsibility on the part of the federal government, and provincial and municipal governments as well because they have their own regulations, to ensure that citizens have this information so they can feel safe. It is frightening enough to be faced with any kind of emergency, be it a climatic one or an armed conflict. It is frightening not to have any idea whatsoever as to who takes responsibility and for what. I hope committee members will take into consideration the publication of this kind of information.

In the first few hours of an incident it is important that one person be seen as taking a leadership role. It is important that one person be responsible for ensuring that all the things that are supposed to happen do happen. Responsibility should not be spread out among a variety of people. There must be one place of accountability.

The bill states, “The minister is responsible for exercising leadership relating to emergency management in Canada by coordinating, among government institutions and in cooperation with the provinces and other entities, emergency management activities”. When the committee considers the bill, I would ask it to consider two things: one, to write shorter sentences so we do not have to take a breath in the middle; and second, to make clear that the responsibility for acting would be in the hands of one minister and one minister only.

The concern about access to information has already been raised by some members. Some people feel that this concern has been answered. This bill would amend the Access to Information Act ostensibly to provide for protection of information provided by third parties which, if disclosed, might pose a security threat. I hope the committee will examine this in greater detail to see if there are any issues which may adversely affect the privacy rights of Canadians. I understand in an emergency many things have to be done, but the committee has to look a little more closely at whether this would adversely affect the privacy rights of Canadians out of proportion to what might be necessary in a particular emergency.

Several people have asked for clarity as it pertains to foreign affairs, armed conflict and so on. I think my colleague here has asked that question on two occasions. I do know that the summary states:

This enactment provides for a national emergency management system that strengthens Canada’s capacity to protect Canadians.

What people are raising is a provision of clarity that these regulations only apply in terms of things that happen, not just affect people living on Canadian soil but happen on Canadian soil. If I understand my colleague's question correctly, that is the kind of clarity that he would like to see.

I will wrap up my comments by saying that there are still a number of issues to look at when the bill goes to committee. I understand the intent of the bill. Every Canadian wants there to be in place an emergency piece of legislation where they know people will leap into action to do everything they can to make them safe.

Hurricane Katrina was a perfect example of what we should not do. People were left stranded everywhere with certain people being attended to first before people with fewer resources. We saw some very damaging ways of responding to an emergency during hurricane Katrina. I believe we will have learned those kinds of lessons. I would not of course believe that Canadians would respond to people in an emergency situation in any different way based on their current circumstances, economic, social or otherwise.

I look forward to hearing the results of the debate at committee.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

When debate resumes on Bill C-12, if it is the member's wish, she will still have eight minutes.

Paramedics

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to those who serve and protect us.

Two B.C. ambulance paramedics lost their lives in the line of duty May 17, 2006 at the Sullivan Mine in my constituency. The two paramedics were coming to the aid of others at the site.

Kim Weitzel and Shawn Currier responded to a 911 call to find two people who had collapsed. In aiding the fallen workers, the paramedics themselves lost their lives.

This reminds us of the danger our emergency workers face every day as they risk their lives attempting to save others. They confront the most dangerous of conditions, providing Canadian communities with protection and well-being.

Every day these people put their own lives in peril. We thank these men and women for their courage, bravery and hard work protecting our communities. We hold the names of Kim Weitzel and Shawn Currier in the highest honour.

Afghanistan

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my deepest sorrow on the death of two soldiers from my northern Ontario riding.

Private David Byers of Espanola, who served with the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry based in Shilo, Manitoba and, in a tragic coincidence, Corporal Glen Arnold of the nearby village of McKerrow, who served in 2nd Field Ambulance based in Petawawa, Ontario.

They were two of the four soldiers who lost their lives a few days ago when their patrol was attacked by a suicide bomber in Afghanistan. These two men were brave individuals who have given their lives working for a safer and better world, promoting the rights and freedoms that Canadians enjoy.

On behalf of the constituents of our riding and all Canadians, we honour them and say to the members of their families that the loss of David and Glen is not in vain and we shall remember them.

Both soldiers leave behind proud and loving families who will miss them greatly. We should acknowledge and remember the sacrifices of all the brave men and women in Canada's armed services.

We should support them and be proud of their work as they go about, on our behalf, protecting our country and promoting Canadian democratic values abroad, a role that requires a great deal of sacrifice and commitment.