Michel Gauthier

[Public Safety Act, November 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence has said that the Kananaskis police could ask for help from the army if it needed it. This type of request is entirely possible in the current context, so long as it is made by provincial authorities.

Will the Minister of National Defence recognize that Bill C-42, on public safety, goes a lot further than the present legislation, much further than he wants us to know, and that he does not need to ask anyone to order a military security zone for as long as he wants, on top of that?

[Public Safety Act, November 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, considering that we are dealing with privacy, we are quite prepared to support the passage of the clauses of the bill.

However, parliament cannot do a responsible job if the government House leader does not pledge that the consideration of the bill will not end at the committee stage, before we have seen all the regulations to know exactly what kind of information is involved and ensure that privacy is indeed protected under the proposed legislation.

[Public Safety Act, November 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, to live in a military security zone for one year must be quite the experience. The Deputy Prime Minister should remember that.

The Bloc Quebecois is not opposed to having some parts of the bill be dealt with separately. I believe this is what the government is about to do. It only makes sense that intelligence information be transmitted for the purpose of air safety. But safety must not be ensured at the expense of privacy. It would be a mistake to examine the legislative framework alone, without the regulations.

Will the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons admit that it would be extremely dangerous to examine the legislative framework alone given the importance of the regulations?

[Public Safety Act, November 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, we have not exaggerated anything at all and I challenge the minister to show me where in the bill it shows that we are exaggerating.

Given the powers granted to the minister in Bill C-42, combined with the powers in the anti-terrorism bill, is the government not in the process of acquiring powers that, curiously, are starting to look much like the powers that were exerted over Quebec City in the 1970s?

[Public Safety Act, November 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely nothing in Bill C-42 that would limit the size of a military security zone, and the Prime Minister has just confirmed this for us.

Could the Prime Minister indicate where in the bill it states that a military security zone could not cover the entire area of Toronto, for example, or the Montreal urban community or the whole of Quebec? Where in the bill is this written?

[Public Safety Act, November 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, we are not on Mars. It is clear in the bill that such orders are not subject to the charter of rights and freedoms.

It is also clear that the Minister of National Defence is not only suspending people's rights by creating military security zones, but that he is also, under the new clause 84(9), removing the right to go before the courts to seek justice and compensation for any damages, losses or injuries following the creation of a military security zone.

It is spelled out in the bill. What does the minister have to say about this?

[Public Safety Act, November 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in Bill C-42 on public safety, the designation of military security zones by the Minister of National Defence goes totally against some provisions of the charter of rights and freedoms in that the rights of people will be suspended.

Can the Prime Minister confirm that, within the security zones to be created under Bill C-42, certain rights, including the right to demonstrate and the rights to freedom of association, freedom of expression and freedom of movement may be suspended, which means that the public will lose some of its rights?

[Airline Security, November 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the minister can say whatever he wants but if he is not familiar with his bill, and that is his problem not ours.

Clause 11.1.4 of the bill—which he wrote, not me—, says that an order is exempt from the application of certain sections, including the one requiring it to be consistent with the charter.

When it is written down in black and white, I would prefer to believe the bill and what it says than a minister who says whatever comes into his head.

[Airline Security, November 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, usually, ministerial orders are checked for consistency with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But in the public safety bill, the minister has removed this provision, with the result that there will no longer be such a check.

How can the government explain that a need for increased security in Canada means that there will no longer even be an effort to check whether ministerial delegation to officials is consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, November 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, we will let those who are listening to our debates assess the quality of the answers provided.

Is Normand Lester's book not a perfect opportunity for the government to settle its accounts with the journalist who exposed the scheme between the government, Robert Guy Scully and the Heritage Minutes ? Is the government not using Normand Lester's book to finally get at him?