David Collenette

[St. Lawrence Seaway, October 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the U.S. government has decided to examine the possibility of expanding the St. Lawrence Seaway. We find this of interest, but we require studies before undertaking expansion.

[The Environment, October 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would think this is really an Order Paper question. I will endeavour to get an answer for the hon. member.

[Public Safety Act 2002, October 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I will not lower myself to that kind of rhetoric. We are dealing with national security issues for all Canadians.

I would hope that my friend from the Bloc would accept the fact that we have had a lot of debate. We have actually accepted amendments that have come from his party which were reasoned and most acceptable.

The hon. member should address those particular issues, rather than showing his pathological fear of the member for LaSalle—Émard. The member for LaSalle—Émard will be the next Prime Minister of Canada and he will love the opportunity to meet the hon. member's party in Quebec in the next federal election and give them what for.

[Public Safety Act 2002, October 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vancouver East talks about a public interest to be served. Those were her words. I agree with her.

The public interest has been served by a bill before the House for one year in three manifestations. There has been nearly 40 hours of debate here in the House of Commons, and in committee, for six months a bevy of witnesses have come forward, amendments have come forward and were accepted. That is democracy.

We are dealing with a bill that will help us provide safer air travel, secure environment for air travel, facilitate law enforcement and national security information between federal departments and agencies, and deter hoaxes that endanger the public or heighten public anxiety.

Bill C-17 would tighten explosives and hazardous substance use, as well as activities for other dangerous substances, such as pathogens, and for the export and transfer of technology.

The bill would help identify and prevent harmful, unauthorized use or interference with computer systems operated by counterterrorist agencies and deter the proliferation of biological weapons.

These are monumentally significant to the security of Canadians. I am sorry that my friend from Vancouver East was detained and could not hear my reply. I am sure she will read it in Hansard a little later.

The fact is that this is an important piece of legislation covering all of those areas. We have had all of this debate. Now we must, in the words of the member for Vancouver East, ensure the public interest is served. It will be served by enacting Bill C-17.

[Public Safety Act 2002, October 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to inform the hon. member that I never sat in the opposition. I have been fortunate to be only a government member. When the Mulroney government took office, I was retired, so to speak, or to be precise, the voters in my riding retired me. I came back, however, with the current Prime Minister, the hon. member for Saint-Maurice.

The hon. member is right nonetheless; it is an opposition tactic to criticize closure on debate.That is always the case. The same is true in England, France and every legislature around the world.

It is part of parliamentary lore, whether it be in this country, in the United States or in Europe, that the opposition always wants to demand more time and to have further debate. That is the function of the opposition. No one should be embarrassed about it but, equally, the government should not be embarrassed about discharging its duties and saying that enough debate is enough, that it has listened and it has been sensitive.

In this case, we are dealing with something of national urgency and high priority. It affects our relations with the United States because we need to provide a more secure environment for North America. It is irresponsible to keep the debate going even further because we are not discharging our obligations to the people of Canada to have a secure country and a secure continent.

[Public Safety Act 2002, October 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the arguments by my friend in the Alliance are somewhat antediluvian in the sense that we have the opposition always arguing against any time allocation motions. In fact, in the old days, before the first world war, there was no way to cut off debate.

I believe it was on the naval bill in 1914 that the government of Sir Robert Borden introduced the first closure process. It was used a few other times, of course the most recognizable one being the pipeline debate in 1956 which was certainly mishandled. The government at the time paid the price in the next election.

However when rule changes came into the fore in the 1960s, the time allocation process was brought in. Time allocation is a kinder, gentler, milder form of ending debate. It is not closure in the rough and ready historical sense.

We need time allocation. We need more efficient management because at a certain point in time we need to move on to other important issues facing the nation. In a modern society we do not have the luxury that we had in Parliament before the first world war of not having any means to end debate.

We are not alone in that. In the United Kingdom, time allocation is almost a function of routine business. In a modern democracy we must allow time for debate but we also must end that debate to move on to all the other key legislative issues before Parliament, and that is what we are doing today.

We are not stifling anybody's right to speak. We have accepted amendments from the Bloc, other parties and from our own members but at a certain point in time a responsible government must decide to call Parliament to end the debate.

[Public Safety Act 2002, October 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad my friend from Churchill brought forward the name of Stanley Knowles. I served in the House with Mr. Knowles for 10 years, between 1974 and 1984. I used to attend the House leaders meetings as parliamentary secretary to the House leader with Mr. Knowles in the Constitution debate.

I accept that quote from Mr. Knowles in 1968. However I can say that from those House leaders meetings it was Mr. Knowles representing Mr. Broadbent, the then leader of the New Democratic Party, who believed that after all the debate we had on the constitutional resolution, the patriation resolution, that it had to be brought to a head and that Parliament had to finish the debate.

That was a very acrimonious debate, as members may remember. One night members of the Conservative Party stormed the Chair and touched the mace. There was almost a riot in the House. That was because they felt so strongly about the issue that they had time to make their case. In fact, at that particular point in time the now member for Calgary Centre, who was leader of the opposition, used dilatory tactics in the House to force the government to put the reference before the Supreme Court. However when it came back changes had been made. I specifically remember the position of the NDP with Mr. Broadbent and Mr. Knowles, which was, “We have had the debate. Enough is enough. We will support you”.

The member quotes one of the great parliamentarians of all time, Mr. Knowles, but even Stanley Knowles knew that at a certain period of time a government must, if it is to act responsibly, make a decision.

[Public Safety Act 2002, October 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, memories fade very quickly around here because right after the terrorist attacks there was unanimity in the House that we had to deal with our domestic security and we had to work with our American friends to improve border security and other security for the continent. That is why Bill C-36, despite some considerable debate and some initial flaws, was ultimately passed.

Then we required the second bill, as I mentioned. The fact that this is the third manifestation of that bill shows that we have been serious in trying to reflect the concerns of members of the House.

However it has been more than two years since the terrorist attacks and we are still saying that we need more time. At a certain point, if we are going to govern we must make a decision. The government will be proud to defend that decision to the electorate when we go to the electorate, perhaps early next year, because we believe this is in the interest of national security.

I should just say to my friends in the Bloc, who were arguing a few minutes ago, that we actually adopted two Bloc amendments: one that clarified our intention that the minister would be the one carrying out the requirements of the security measure wherever the minister considered it necessary to do so, and that is not a delegated provision; and a second amendment to make the definition of transportation security applicable to the proposed section 4.81, Transport Canada, as well as the proposed section 4.82, the Solicitor General.

In other words, we had this debate. The Bloc members came forward with a couple of amendments, and congratulations to them, because they made very good points. We were moved by their arguments and accepted their arguments. However the time for arguments is over. It is time now for action.

[Public Safety Act 2002, October 7th, 2003]

Not at all, Mr. Speaker. In response to questions by the Canadian Alliance, I already explained that the Standing Orders allow debate to be ended once all the arguments have been heard.

I am extremely pleased to agree with the hon. member from the Bloc Quebecois on the need to strike a balance between respecting the rights and freedoms of Canadians and ensuring security. I think that, after all our debates both in committee and the House, we have struck this balance.

As the hon. member stated, we accept the position of the Bloc and those of members on this side of the House regarding the military exclusion zones, and we made changes by withdrawing the clause on these zones. So we have responded to members' arguments.

With regard to the other issues, the government's position is that once all the arguments have been heard, it is time to make a decision. That is what we are going to do today. The majority of members in the House of Commons want a debate followed by a decision.

As I already stated, there have been almost 40 hours of debate in the House; the committee debated this issue for almost one year. In my opinion, this demonstrates our willingness to listen to the opposition's arguments, as well as those of our Liberal colleagues. Once all the debates are over, the House must decide; that is why the government House leader introduced this motion.

[Public Safety Act 2002, October 7th, 2003]

My colleague from the Alliance Party seems to be talking out of both sides of his mouth. On the one hand he said that his party is for Bill C-17 and “we should move on with it” and then he said that this motion, a legitimate motion in the standing orders, should not be used.

There is a time for decision in all parliamentary debate. We believe that the decision is now. In fact he seems to agree with that because we should move on with it.

Let me remind the House that this was a bill that came here originally as Bill C-42. Then Bill C-44 was hived off and then it became Bill C-55 and then Bill C-17. The bill has been before the House for a year in one form or another. It has been debated at second reading nine hours and 35 minutes, three hours and 15 minutes at report stage, three hours and 25 minutes at third reading. All told, there have been 38 hours and 15 minutes of debate. Also the committee studied it from November last year until May 2003.

It seems to me that we have had a lot of debate. I say to my friends in the Alliance that this is not a matter for procedural argument. We are dealing here with a crucial piece of legislation that flowed from the terrible attacks on September 11, 2001. We had Bill C-36 and then we had the bills which I just referred to, ultimately becoming Bill C-17.

It is absolutely crucial in the interest of national security and in dealing with the North American security environment, that this bill be passed. That is why the government House leader correctly in my view has brought forward the motion today.