Art Eggleton

[Public Safety Act, November 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely not. I agree with exactly what the Prime Minister said. That is what we have taken into consideration. All of this is subject to proper scrutiny and review. Judicial review can certainly determine whether there is any need for tightening up any of the provisions in terms of where we apply this law. However it requires that we be reasonable and be confined to dealing with that which is in fact lawful and in the jurisdiction of the Government of Canada and the Canadian forces.

[Public Safety Act, November 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, more exaggeration from the opposition. The bill codifies and clarifies responsibilities which fall to the Government of Canada already. The bill does not violate the charter of rights and freedoms. The government is as interested and as concerned with ensuring that we take into consideration the rights and freedoms of Canadians, together with their safety and security.

It is this government that brings about a balance. It is this government that amended Bill C-36 and listened to the various representations which were made. We are prepared to listen to representations again.

[Public Safety Act, November 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the government put the bill forward for the safety and security of Canadians. We have no intention of withdrawing it.

We want to make sure, though, in putting these provisions forward that we properly safeguard the rights and freedoms of Canadians, while at the same time bring about better security. If the opposition or the public have some suggestions on how we can improve on that, the Prime Minister has quite clearly said that we are quite receptive to looking at those possibilities.

[Public Safety Act, November 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it does not change on a day to day basis. It is in writing in the bill; it can be seen. They can analyze it. They can come to the committee. They can make some suggestions, if they think it needs to be better clarified or improved in any way. The government is very open to looking at the suggestions of any members of the opposition or the public.

[Public Safety Act, November 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely nothing. It has been said many times in the House that we want to allow for legitimate protesters. What we are trying to prevent are terrorist attacks and violence from occurring. We need to protect people and we need to protect property from time to time. The police do that. There is no change in the power in terms of that. It just means the Canadian forces can come in and assist in this time of concern about terrorist activities. That is an appropriate and reasonable thing to do. All of this will be discussed at committee and members can make all their suggestions at that time.

[Public Safety Act, November 29th, 2001]

Not at all, Mr. Speaker. The situation with Kananaskis is that area would be under the control of the RCMP. The federal police will have involvement in securing that area. If they required additional assistance from the Canadian forces, we would be there to provide it. That is simply what this would mean.

[Public Safety Act, November 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, if, for example, a nuclear power plant were in danger of being attacked by terrorists, I think Canadians would want the Canadian forces to be there to protect it. That is why they would be there, to provide that kind of security.

These kinds of provisions are subject to judicial review if people think they go beyond what they are intended to do, but I do not think that is the case at all. I think there is a great exaggeration over there on the other side. They can make suggestions and propose amendments at the committee.

[Public Safety Act, November 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, there are limits on the area. It must be reasonable. It must be reflective of the purpose. If we are protecting a ship or protecting a military jet aircraft, it will only be that area that will be protected. It will not be a whole city. That is where members opposite get into gross exaggeration of the situation.

In terms of the common law powers that are exercised by police, we are not talking about any expansion of them. We would take over from them in circumstances where they would need help. Aid to the civil power already provides for that kind of situation.

[Public Safety Act, November 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any difference between what I am saying here in the House and what the officials have said. I would still say that the hon. member is exaggerating how this particular law will be applied.

I will say this. There will be an opportunity to discuss this at committee and to consider changes. They may make recommendations at that time. I also intend to consult the provinces on this matter forthwith.

[Public Safety Act, November 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, the intent of the bill is to protect military property and Canadian forces or allies when they are off a military base. When they are on a military base we already have that protection, that security. This protects them off the base.

It also provides for other circumstances where police would have control and would need additional assistance in providing security to a specific area. It could include an area where meetings are held, as I have indicated, somewhere such as Kananaskis. It could also include a nuclear power plant.