Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for her comments. There is irony in the member's statement in regard to the Anti-terrorism Act.
Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a ringing in the audio equipment. I always seem to get ringing in my ears when I listen to Liberals. They are sometimes hard to discern.
Having said that, the member may want to reflect on the Liberals' position on the Anti-terrorism Act. On one hand they say that the two provisions are not necessary, and on the other hand they say they are necessary and that is demonstrated by the fact that the bill was introduced by the Liberal Party in the first place. For them to flip-flop on that is disappointing. We have heard that debate many times before. I am surprised the member brought it up on Bill C-42, and on that note I will focus my comments on Bill C-42.
The main thrust of the member's concern is in regard to why land travel is not included in the act. In fact, it is included in the amendments to the act. I refer the member to section 34(1), which reads:
This section applies to the operator of any of the following conveyances:
(a) a watercraft or aircraft that is used in the business of carrying persons or cargo; and
(b) a prescribed conveyance.
The term “a prescribed conveyance” can be applied to the method of travel that the member is concerned about . There is less of a risk from land travel, but it is in fact addressed in the act.
With the knowledge that section 34(b) applies to any conveyance that in the future might be considered a high risk, be it a bus, train or whatever, will the member with that knowledge reconsider her position?