Grant McNally

[An act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, December 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions with all parties and I believe that if you seek it, you would find unanimous consent that the report stage motions standing in the name of the member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough be now put in the name of the member for Prince George--Peace River.

[Employment Equity Act, December 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Mississauga West said that his House leader wants to wrap things up and move on to something else, but I was enjoying his comments. He talked about the different individuals within his own riding who had benefited from some companies that had initiated employment equity programs on their own. As he indicated, they were not imposed; they were a result of the Community Living organization and other groups in his riding.

I wonder if the member could expand upon these good notions and things happening within his own riding.

[Employment Equity Act, December 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my coalition colleague for his speech because he gave a reasoned debate. Throughout his speech he gave several examples of problems with the current system and he offered suggestions for improvement.

One part of those suggestions, which he did not get much chance to talk about and on which I ask him to enlighten us further, was the private member's bill he is bringing forward. Could he tell us how Bill C-351 could remedy some of the situations he outlined in his speech?

[Anti-terrorism Act, November 27th, 2001]

Liberal backbenchers.

[Anti-terrorism Act, November 26th, 2001]

My colleague reminds me of some of the more glaring examples, such as APEC and the Grand-Mère affair which is still brewing in Shawinigan. We need to consider what it is we do with the bill.

For that reason we simply need to support these amendments and make this legislation stronger. Without doing so, we not only send a wrong message to Canadians but we enshrine in law a message to Canadians that their rights will be hindered in the future. They will not have access as to why they may arrive on this list and why they would be in the position that they are in.

For that reason I support these amendments and encourage others in the House to support the amendments, including my colleagues on the government side. I encourage all of us to work together in passing these amendments and fixing up the bill.

[Anti-terrorism Act, November 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to spend time talking about the amendments before us at this stage of Bill C-36.

I agree with many of the comments made by my colleagues. I first want to reflect on some of the comments made by our Liberal colleague from Scarborough East who quite appropriately said earlier in debate that he has some concerns about the bill. He referred to not being happy with the amendments but being less unhappy with the bill because of the amendments that were coming forward. He freely expressed an opinion shared by many members of the House that the bill curtailed the rights and freedoms of Canadians in ways that needed to be further defined and that if left undefined, as is the case in the current state of the bill, it could lead to some serious problems not only now but in the future in regard to fighting terrorism.

Of course we all agree with the notion of fighting terrorism. I do not think there is a member in the place who would disagree with that concept. However there are members who disagree with the intent and direction of the bill in its current state and would suggest that it needs to be fixed. That is why the right hon. member for Calgary Centre brought forward some of the amendments in this current grouping.

One of main concerns he has brought forward is that criteria be put in place for how individuals would be listed as terrorists under the bill. It is an issue that came up in question period today. Basically the solicitor general told us, in not so many words, that we should trust him. He will develop the list and the criteria and we should not worry. Those are the kinds of comments that do make us worry because quite clearly there seems to be a lack of any coherent systematic list or criteria that individuals will be subjected to before being put on the list.

Once individuals are on the list, how would they get off it? How would they find out if they are even on the list? My colleague from Pictou--Antigonish-Guysborough made that point in question period. Is it that they have to go to the bank, try to use their bank card to find that their assets have been seized before they even receive knowledge that they are on the list?

It seems quite incomprehensible that the government would move forward without defining this aspect of the bill. This is what the amendments attempt to do. That is why I am personally supportive of them and obviously the PC/DR coalition is supportive of them, as are many members of the House.

The government has asked us to put our full and unfettered trust in it to fight terrorism. If the government had proven over the test of time that it was worthy of such trust, I do not think there would be a concern by members of the opposition. If we look over the past record of the government in other dealings, we see there is a reason to question aspects of the bill.

I point specifically to the notion of access to information. I know that the Prime Minister's Office has been involved in court cases with the information commissioner in relation to viewing the Prime Minister's personal logs and agenda books. The nub of that particular issue is not that the information be released, but that the information commissioner be allowed to look at the information to then determine whether that information should be released. The Prime Minister's Office is involved in a suit against the information commissioner on that particular point; this notion of guarding information.

In this case we have a bill which has been brought forward where civil liberties of Canadians will be put at particular risk in certain circumstances and there will be no opportunity for individuals to find out what criteria are put in place that would have them put on the list and, if they should end up on the list, how they might ever get off it.

Clearly the government can see that this is a problem and that if it does not address the question, it will lose support on the particular notion of support for the entire bill.

Members have been generally supportive of course but have reserved the right to question the government and to refine this legislation so that it addresses these points. If they remain unanswered and if the government members fail to acknowledge that the questions the opposition members and individuals across the country have are important, they do so at their own peril because they will not only lose support of some of the members of parliament, but they will lose support from those they represent, their constituents at large, the people of the country.

I dare say that Canadians would be willing to give the government free and unfettered access to imposing these kinds of criteria lists on individuals without some assurances that this absolute power, which is what in essence happens in our parliamentary system when a government has a majority government, is not used to the detriment of individuals across the country.

That is why we need the amendments that are in this group. We need to look at further amendments before the bill. It is dependent upon the government to listen closely to the concerns that are being raised. If it does not, I would say it would lose support not only from members on this side but from members of the government who have already stood in this place during debate on report stage of Bill C-36. The government members have mentioned some of those grave concerns that they have with the bill and how it curtails the rights and freedoms and civil liberties of Canadians.

It would be my hope that we could find a way to improve the bill. We sound a bit of an alarm bell on behalf of Canadians because of previous actions of the government. We would hope the government would prove us wrong, but to put our complete trust in a group that has proved untrustworthy in other instances before--

[Canada National marine conservation areas Act, November 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-10 one more time. I begin my comments by saying that the coalition will be supporting the bill although I do take into account some of the comments made by my colleagues from other parties on the whole notion of trust. There have been occasions in the past when the government has indicated that it would do things in a certain way and it turned out to be exactly the opposite.

When we studied Bill C-10 in committee we had the government act in a number of ways to try to include the concerns raised by witnesses, by me and by my colleagues, in particular my colleague from the Alliance representing Skeena. The government moved a bit on some of those issues.

One of the biggest concerns was the whole area of provincial and federal jurisdiction. If a marine conservation area is to be established in an area under federal jurisdiction, from the federal government's perspective there is no need for it to consult although it said it would consult. That is positive.

In an area that is under provincial jurisdiction the legislation clearly outlines that the provincial and federal governments must be in agreement with the establishment of a marine conservation area.

Generally speaking the concept of a marine conservation area is a positive one. It is a good idea to set aside 29 marine parks in different regions of the country, one representing each region and sub-region, so that we can maintain these areas not only for now but for future use and enjoyment as well.

I believe there is balance in the legislation in that other activities are allowed to occur in a marine conservation area such as fishing and others. Those items are clearly laid out in the bill.

Those who listened to the debate throughout our deliberations on Bill C-10 will know that concerns were raised by the Alliance indicating that the bill went too far and did not allow for enough consultation, flexibility or resource development.

Our friends in the NDP say the bill does not go far enough to protect the environment. Our friends in the Bloc have concerns about the bill mainly because of the provincial jurisdiction aspect. We understand that is their concern. It is a concern for all of us as well. My colleague in the Bloc previously pointed out the whole issue of trust.

In the past the government has infringed on areas of provincial jurisdiction. Even in a bill where the process is clearly laid out the way there is a bit of hesitance to accept the federal government's role in the way that it will actually carry out the process laid out in the bill.

The legislation will be passed because the government is in support of it. It has a majority in the House. Regardless of what opposition members do, if it is a piece of legislation the government wants to go through the House it will go through the House.

If the bill is to be successful and if the creation of these marine conservation areas is to go ahead in a way that takes into account consultation with local regions and with provinces, it is dependent upon the government, and particularly the minister of heritage because the bill is under her area of jurisdiction, that it be implemented in such a way that a marine conservation area will never be established against the will of local communities or provincial jurisdiction. We hope that would be the case.

The government assured us that it was not its intent and drafters of the legislation told us that as well. However, as others have said in this place, we have heard those words before. When we hear them over and over and the actions do not add up to the words, we tend to hesitate in putting trust and faith in a government that has not always lived up to its promises in the past.

We could spend some time talking about promises made by the Liberal government since it took office in 1993. There were things like the GST, helicopters and all kinds of other issues, but I will not digress.

Those kinds of things give us reason to question whether or not the government would implement the bill in the way that it says it would. It is only when the government commits by its actions and lives up to its word that it is able to move ahead and build trust not only with members of parliament from other parties but also with the people we represent in different regions across the country.

It is my hope that this would be the case with Bill C-10. I came to study the bill later than some of my colleagues. It has had several incarnations in the House and we are at the point where the legislation can go ahead.

We support the establishment of marine conservation areas but qualify our support hoping that the government will continue the consultative process with local communities and provinces before establishing one of these areas.

Once established, it is hoped that the government would stick to its word to continue with advisory committees from the local areas to monitor the implementation of the marine conservation areas and to monitor the activities in the areas. If the government does not follow through on that it will give rise to the objections we had and prove those who oppose the bill to be right. It will only be with the test of time that we will see whether or not the government delivers on the commitment of consultation.

There are many concerns about the bill. We in the PC/DR coalition do not believe it to be a perfect bill. We have qualified support for it since we support the notion of marine conservation areas. We believe there has been some balance struck in the bill, but it will only be a supportable notion if the government proceeds in a way that ensures consultation and that the conservation areas are put in locations with the agreement of those communities.

[Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, November 20th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As there are five times as many members of the opposition than the two government members, I call for quorum.

[Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, November 20th, 2001]

My friend from the Liberal Party, the parliamentary secretary, wants her turn to speak. I cannot quite tell whether or not she is agreeing with what I am saying. Perhaps she might want to listen, rather than voice comments quietly under her breath.

I am simply making this point. Is the intent of this clause in the bill to be able to sweep under the rug the whole idea of the issuance of a special permit which the minister of immigration previously would have had to give to individuals with criminal records coming to Canada? Is that the intent of this part of the bill?

It seems quite contrary in the climate that we have with Bill C-36 that the government is extending the issue of immunity in the bill. It would seem to me that the government would prioritise the legislation it brings to the House. Is this the issue that is gripping our nation today? I do not think so. There are many other issues having to do with what happened on September 11.

I have made this point several times in the House and I will make it again. We have outstanding issues of trade. We have the ongoing softwood lumber debate. That is impacting on all of Canada, but particularly on my area of British Columbia. There is an outstanding issue that has not yet been resolved. We have border security issues and integration of our trade with the United States. Where are the pieces of legislation that would solve those issues that are top of mind for Canadians?

We need to correct our existing system before we extend immunity and privileges to even more visitors who would come to Canada. It just seems to make sense that we would do that first.

My colleagues have mentioned some of the cases that have come up over the last several years where individuals have committed criminal activities in Canada and diplomats have participated in that. The most high profile one has been mentioned by my colleagues as well: the tragic death of Catherine MacLean in Ottawa who was struck and killed by a Russian diplomat. We know that he is now being charged with careless driving in Russia.

I want to focus on an amendment that was brought forward by my colleague from Cumberland--Colchester. It is a very commonsense notion that was defeated by the government at committee. It is one that would effectively report to parliament the names of individuals to whom this immunity was extended.

Why not have that transparent clause in the bill so that we would know to whom this blanket immunity is being extended? In so doing the Minister of Foreign Affairs could keep his promise on this point. It should simply lay out to whom this extended amount of immunity is being given.

Unfortunately that was defeated in committee. I believe that would have gone a long way toward building confidence and trust among all parties that this immunity would not simply be a blanket immunity used by many who might break the law when they are in Canada.

The use of diplomatic immunity has become distorted. The concept of diplomatic immunity is intended to protect foreign representatives from arbitrary harassment in the legal conduct of their affairs and not to allow them to hide from criminality. The concept of immunity is not to give people a blank cheque when they enter our country to do whatever it is they might want to do. It is there to protect them in the commission of their jobs.

In the context of Bill C-36, when we are having more restrictions put on Canadian citizens and their rights and their freedoms here the government at the same time is extending through this wide ranging immunity the rights of foreigners who would come to our country and who may break the law. It is mind boggling how we could have both of those bills before the House at the same time. It is very contradictory.

I hope it is something the government will address. It has an opportunity to do so because the bill is still before us in this place. Why not report to parliament once or twice a year, as my colleague has suggested, who is covered by this broad, sweeping immunity? Why not put those accountability measures not only into this piece of legislation but into others that are before this place too? If the government would take this approach I think it would find in general more support for the initiatives it comes up with.

When the government is not willing to do so it sends a negative message, which is to the detriment of the government's own initiatives.

I will close by saying that the bill extends immunity when it should not. The government has refused not only in committee but now at this next stage of the bill in the House to be more accountable, to build in some mechanisms to report on who will be getting immunity. I think that is wrongheaded. It is a shame it is not taking this opportunity to build consensus with this legislation. It is certainly not the number one issue seizing the nation today.

[Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, November 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I share many of the same concerns my colleagues have mentioned already on Bill C-35. As it made its way through parliament, as my colleague from Cumberland--Colchester mentioned, the bill seemed rather innocuous at first. However when we take a look at it we realize some of the outstanding contradictions in the bill as compared to Bill C-36. My friend from Surrey North mentioned that in his speech. Others have mentioned it as well, and I agree.

The government has quietly attempted to extend diplomatic immunity and privileges to a whole host of new foreign visitors that would come to Canada to attend international conferences. Special visitor visas would supercede the immigration minister's power to allow potential visitors with a criminal past to come to Canada. They could otherwise be refused entry because of a criminal record.

I have to ask this question. Is this intended to take the heat off the minister of immigration? It seems this clause supercedes the issuance of a special permit.

When I was on the immigration committee for two years we had all kinds of debates on issues about the whole idea of issuing a special permit to an individual who would come from abroad.