Bev Desjarlais

[Tax Credit, May 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the motion and to commend my colleague from Fundy--Royal for having the courage to bring forth this kind of motion. It is not something that we would normally expect at this point.

The motion recognizes there is a grave imbalance within Canada with students attending post-secondary education and how they afford to take their education. That imbalance has happened over a number of years, specifically taking a real downturn around 1993, the year the Liberal government came into being as the governing party. It consistently attacked funding and transfer dollars that were going to the provinces to the point that they went from $7 billion to 17% lower than they were. As a result we have seen a situation where provinces become cash-strapped.

Hefty tax dollars come into the federal government via gas taxes, income taxes, GST--

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, May 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am seeking some clarification. My colleague from Winnipeg mentioned earlier numerous hypothetical instances. My colleague from the Alliance has just mentioned a situation where an adult woman might want to have her own child without using someone else's sperm. I am rather at a loss as to how that would be possible? Again, relating to the information that the member just read, I would like some clarification as to exactly how the member came up with that idea?

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, May 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Winnipeg for his comments. He certainly touches on a number of areas where there is concern.

I believe this has been mentioned previously, and from my own perspective, that the bill is lacking in a number of areas which the committee has recognized should be included. He mentioned that the big topic area was children not knowing where they were from and not having the same rights. As far as I am concerned, this is a big issue. We hear of more and more adults, 40, 50 or 60 years old, who want to know exactly from where they came.

This is an opportunity for us to not allow that to happen to children coming about as a result of reproductive research or medical procedures. This crucial area needs to be addressed. It is not a tough area to include in the bill so it is absolutely beyond me why it is not there.

I am greatly concerned that the bill does not stipulate mandatory testing of reproductive material. At a time when we have so many diseases floating throughout the world, why we would not ensure that testing is done and that it is mandatory within the bill? Again, this is again beyond me. It does not appear to be a big issue.

My colleague spoke highly of researchers and I believe that the majority of researchers are credible and honourable people. However we also have to recognize that there are those individuals who are unscrupulous, dishonest and will do anything for a buck. The bill lacks assurance that those types of people cannot proceed with issues that are contentious.

Though recognizing that there should not be payment for certain procedures, the bill does not contain anything about disallowing patenting and money making from DNA or reproductive technologies. I am a bit concerned about that. Would the member comment on that?

[Infrastructure, May 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, Ontario truckers, the CAA and others are outraged by possible tolls on Highway 403. The federal government spends only 5% of gas tax revenue on roads.

In 1999 the auditor general criticized Transport Canada's funding process and lack of accountability in spending to help the provinces maintain and upgrade the country's highways. What is the consequences? Bad roads, toll highways, user fees and more taxes.

When will the government make a real investment in Canada's highways so we do not have to continue using the idea of tolls?

[Public Safety Act, 2002, May 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to again speak to Bill C-55. I am pleased to speak to the proposed subamendment because it addresses a crucial aspect of the bill that has raised concerns in the House and throughout Canada.

Canadians and people worldwide have been trying to address security issues and the fears they have as a result of terrorism. Initially after September 11 people wanted to do anything they could and to take no chances whatsoever. That is fair enough. However no one in their wildest imagination thought it would be open season for the RCMP and CSIS to have access to the kind of information Bill C-55 suggests they should have access to, at least not without safeguards to ensure oversight so the rights of Canadians are not unjustly infringed on.

The issue in the subamendment, as the privacy commissioner has touched on rather strongly in the last week or so, relates to airline passenger lists. As the transport committee dealt with security issues after September 11 we met with the privacy commissioner. He voiced concerns about information being requested by the U.S. with regard to individuals travelling into the United States. Generally at that point there was acceptance that some information should be available. No one objects to the right of another country to know who is entering it and how they are coming in. People entering a country must have passports or some kind of identification. That was not an issue.

The bill before us would give the RCMP and CSIS access to airline passenger lists. This cannot be seen as restricted to airline passenger lists. The bill talks about regulations that would provide a good deal of information. However I will speak specifically to the issue of providing airline passenger lists to CSIS and the RCMP. They should check them over if they think a terrorist or someone related to a crime might be on board. I do not think Canadians would object, even though a terrorist would probably not put his occupation as terrorist or indicate he was going into the U.S. for the business of terrorism.

However it is a fair complaint. We should at least look at the lists to see if anyone can be identified as a problem. However that is not what would happen. The RCMP and CSIS could keep the lists for whatever length of time and track any passenger on them. They could track their movements from week to week, month to month or year to year. They may think it suspicious that certain businessmen fly to New York or wherever too many times a year. They may decide it is an issue and track them to see what they are doing.

Quite frankly, Canadians have a problem with that. If someone is not a known criminal the RCMP and CSIS should have no right whatsoever to track them. If they are involved in a criminal investigation and want to track a specific person, so be it. However if there is no criminal investigation related to justifiable reasoning it is not acceptable that every person in Canada on an airline passenger list have the information released to CSIS and the RCMP to do with it what they will.

There are those who say if one has not committed a crime one would not have to worry about it. However, I would suggest that while I would not be committing a crime, I would have a problem with someone being able to track what I am doing, because, quite frankly, it is my business. It is a right in a democratic country to be able to move freely. It is a right for me to be able to go to another country. I have to notify that country that I am going there, and that is fine, but I do not think it is right and just that my movements should be tracked.

I am also greatly concerned that if this is allowed to happen on the issue of airline passenger lists, are we then going to allow the RCMP and CSIS access to the records of all patients going into hospital out of the fear that someone might have come in there with a particular injury? Then they can track who is in the hospital and they can see if this injury is related to this type of event that happened there and that type of event that happened here.

It is not as if it is not the slippery slide down the slope. It is. It is critical to the civil liberties of Canadians. It is critical to a free and democratic society. Quite frankly, I do not want persons such as Osama bin Laden and other terrorists to impose on my freedoms and my democracy. That should not happen. If we in our democratic societies now must worry that our movements are going to be tracked and that we will have the heavy hand of either the law or whatever systems on us just because someone wants to have that information, just because they think they may be able to find something, that is unreasonable.

That, I believe, is what the privacy commissioner spoke to. There are those who have criticized and have said there is no reason to worry, but if I want to get a specialized perspective on something I may not know all the consequences of, I like to know that I can go to someone and get that information, a specialist in the field per se. The privacy commissioner is a specialist in that field. He has seen things happen in our country in different situations. He can identify possible things that might happen that some of us would not even see, because he has already dealt with those types of instances. I am willing to accept his concerns as just concerns that the civil liberties and the privacy of Canadians are being imposed on.

Quite frankly, I think that the privacy commissioner was a reasonable man when he was before the transport committee on the issue of security. He was reasonable in his presentations. He also cautioned us that we should be concerned if countries started wanting more and more information. That is reason for concern. I think he was being reasonable and I think he is reasonable in his concerns in regard to the privacy issue related to Bill C-55. I hope that we will have much further discussion on it.

I believe that Bill C-55 is to go to a special committee now. Again, I hope that what we will see on that special committee is a variety of people from different aspects within parliament, rather than having the bill go to the transport committee. There are those who know how I felt about an issue of such great importance for civil liberties going to the transport committee. It is important that we have people on the committee who will give us a good perspective regarding the bill when they delve into that matter.

I will now give my colleague from the Conservative Party an opportunity to speak.

[Airline Security, May 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the government security tax on air travellers, Canada's new GST, is just a cynical Liberal tax grab preying on people's anxiety since the events of September 11. Take the airport in Thompson, Manitoba. People who fly from Thompson to Winnipeg have to pay the tax even though the airport is not required to have security.

Why is the Minister of Finance making people pay for security they are not receiving? Will he not admit this was an ill-conceived tax grab and repeal it immediately?

[Softwood Lumber, May 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the government's position is not clear. For months the Minister of Human Resources Development has been touting her department's programs to help workers laid off because of the softwood lumber dispute. She obviously thinks there has been some job losses here. Yesterday the international trade minister suddenly claimed that the U.S. protectionist measures have not caused any job losses at all.

I would like to ask the Minister of Industry, who should know a thing or two about the file, which of his colleagues is mistaken. Have U.S. tariffs caused any job losses?

[Firefighters' Pensions, May 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, our debate seems to be a little more prolonged than some of us thought it would be. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this important issue.

I understand the frustration my colleagues from the Alliance are feeling and I have only been here five years. We believe that because a certain motion is voted on in the House that it would go through and we would see some action from the government but nothing happens, not just week after week, month after month, but year after year. It is frustrating, and I fully understand that.

However, in my time here, almost five years now, I have come to recognize that sometimes we have to achieve little steps and do whatever we can to ensure the government follows through. If that means pushing the government into a smaller corner so that it has to follow through then sometimes we have to do that.

On an evening when we all thought that for once we would see this one step further, and quite frankly I hope that it is more than one step further on this important issue. I do not have the greatest faith in the government following through but it is one step further.

I think we all have it in us. The firefighters have been a tremendous lobbying force. The fact that there will be a Liberal leadership race going on will give that extra little push to make sure the government follows through.

I do not want us to lose this advantage. I sincerely hope that we do not get caught up in one of these debates from the other side and jeopardize the opportunity for firefighters to be financially secure, to retire that much earlier so that they could get out of this type of working situation. They are there giving their lives for us in a good number of instances. We should not make them stay there any longer. By passing the motion we can give them the opportunity to retire that much earlier.

[Public Safety Act, 2002, May 2nd, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I want to get a little more follow up on the issue of the lists, specifically passenger lists on airlines. It was suggested this morning by our Liberal colleague from Scarborough--Rouge River that Canadians do not have any problem whatsoever with the RCMP and CSIS having passenger lists to check if there are terrorists.

Last night I listened to the privacy commissioner. His point was that there was not a real problem if someone was checking a list and identified a terrorist. Then the rest of the list is ditched. It is not kept on a master computer file or sent to the U.S. or anywhere else. Nor is it kept for a long period of time. However three months down the road it might be decided that alleged terrorists are travelling here and there and perhaps they should be checked out just in case they are doing something wrong, but they will not know they are being investigated.

Is that one of the real concerns that we should have with regard to the passenger lists?

[Public Safety Act, 2002, May 2nd, 2002]

Madam Speaker, there is not a whole lot of time and I have a number of questions and comments. First, the hon. member indicated the Statutory Instruments Act would apply in this case. Clause 74 of Bill C-55 would add the new section 260.1 to the National Defence Act. Subsection 260.1(7) would read:

Subject to subsection (6), a designation may be renewed

(a) by the Minister personally, on the recommendation of the Chief of the Defence Staff, if as a result of the renewal the designation would be in effect for one year or less; or

(b) by the Governor in Council, if as a result of the renewal the designation would be in effect for more than one year.

Subsection 260.1(9) would read:

A designation, renewal, variance or cancellation is not a statutory instrument within the meaning of the Statutory Instruments Act.

Subsection 260.1(10) would begin as follows:

As soon as possible after a designation--

The last sentence of subsection 260.1(10) would read:

--may be affected by it, unless the Minister is of the opinion that it is inadvisable to do so for reasons of international relations or national defence or security.

It would still give a whole lot of leeway. That is one point.

With regard to the Nanoose Bay situation in B.C., land was expropriated by the federal government from the provincial government. The Canadian government went into a lease arrangement to have a nuclear submarine in Nanoose Bay. The federal government recently lost that court case. Does this allow the federal government to put in an interim order to allow a nuclear submarine in Nanoose Bay? This is something the courts in Canada have said is not allowed.