Roy Cullen

[India, November 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, on October 30 thousands of Canadians gathered at Nathan Phillips Square in Toronto to commemorate and pay respect to the victims of the violence that swept through northern India in the first week of November 1984.

Sikh Canadians have excelled in all walks of life, enriched the multicultural experience of our nation, and formed an integral part of the fabric of this country. We join with them as they remember families, friends and relatives who fell victim to the senseless looting, arson, rape and murder that took place 20 years ago.

We also express our solidarity and give credence to the belief that by remembering such dark episodes of history we are not allowing old ones to fester, but we are attempting to ensure that we learn from these episodes so that they are not repeated.

To honour the victims, candlelight vigils have been organized across North America. It was encouraging to see so many Canadians gathered at the vigil held in Toronto.

[Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act, November 17th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord very much for his comments.

I followed the member's discussion about the degree of cooperation that exists between the federal government and the provinces and territories when it comes to dealing with natural disasters or emergencies. I was very interested in the way that he described that.

I know it is consistent with his colleague, the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, and his role and the degree of cooperation that exists with the Quebec government. When people are threatened, they throw down all their political alliances, all their other thoughts, and they work together to alleviate pain, suffering and threats.

I had the great opportunity a few months ago to visit Washington, D.C. and the department of homeland security. It has an operations centre where it evaluates threats on an ongoing basis. It collects information from all the various agencies around the United States. The level of participation and involvement ramps up depending on the threat assessment and the risk profile. All the various agencies would be there.

If it was a very large threat, it would involve the department of defence, the coast guard, and the people that are dealing with infrastructure. In fact, here in Canada we have a parallel or similar operation in our operations centre and threat assessment unit. There we bring together these various agencies and departments. So there is a coordinated response to the threats.

The member might recall that a couple of years ago we had the big power outage in the northeastern U.S., parts of Ontario, and I think parts of Quebec were affected as well. However, I would not swear to that. It would be fair to say that the impression created was that there was a lack of coordination. We had various departments and governments saying various different things. The citizens of this country were confused.

Therefore, the intent of this operations centre is to have a more coordinated response to threats such as that, so that everyone is on the same page, if I can use that expression, and that there is a balance between the amount of information that is needed to communicate to Canadians and Quebeckers in a reasonable fashion. There is also the demand to have timely information.

It is a careful balance. I do not imagine it is a science. It is more of an art. However, if there is a better coordination where the people are together and sharing the same information and doing that kind of analysis, I am sure that helps. I know the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord has some very specific experience with the flooding of the Saguenay and the toll that it took and the level of cooperation with the various agencies dealing with it.

We now hear for example in Nova Scotia that people are upset with the power corporation. They say that the corporation should have anticipated the kind of snowfall and the effect it would have on the transmission lines and the trees. Has the member studied at all the situation in Nova Scotia? Does he think that the citizens there have a right to be angry at their public utility for not anticipating and preparing for this type of emergency?

[Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act, November 17th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I had the great honour a few years ago of visiting Kiev in Ukraine. I was asked to speak on the topic of corruption and money laundering as a threat to international security.

I have been involved over a number of years with the Global Organization of Parliamentarians Against Corruption. I worked with the ministry of finance on implementing our anti-money laundering regime and FINTRAC. I was surprised that the meeting was put in the context of corruption and money laundering as a threat to international security. When I think about it, of course, it does make sense that corruption and money laundering are destabilizing. Money laundering facilitates terrorist acts. It deals with drug money and other types of laundered funds.

I wonder if the member could comment on the linkage that he might or might not see between corruption and money laundering, and public safety and security.

[Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act, November 17th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh represents an area that abuts the Windsor-Detroit border crossing, a hugely important corridor for trade and for individuals going back and forth.

When I was down there recently I met with the member, his colleague and the mayor. I went across the Ambassador Bridge and back through the tunnel. I met with all the customs people and other stakeholders.

The mayor, I gather, has a plan. I think he perhaps is unfolding the plan as we speak. I know that for the city of Windsor itself there are a number of issues in respect of the traffic flows, the environmental issues, and for Canadians in general and the business community to get goods to market and back and forth given the level of integration between the economies in that area. Goods come from Detroit, are sent to a plant in Windsor where more value is added, and then they are sent back to the U.S. They go back and forth.

Could the member share some of his insights and wisdom with the House on how we might balance local interests against some of the national interests of people across Canada who rely on this border to move our goods and people?

[Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act, November 17th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin.

I am always delighted to hear from the member opposite. He has vast experience in public safety and law in the province of Quebec and has experience of how different governments can cooperate, the federal government with the provincial government. I know he does that in a very non-partisan way. We understand the objectives of his party. He makes a very important point that it goes beyond just articulating powers. It goes to having mutual respect, and the member opposite demonstrates that.

The member talks about why he believes it would be natural for the federal government to try to intrude or get a presence in areas that might be seen to be provincial. We could have a longer debate on that point.

I think the member would also acknowledge, maybe not publicly but privately, that given his political objectives, he would want to ensure that the provincial powers are asserted and maybe push the envelope on that the other way. This is part of the counterpoint and part of the balance that we strive for in debate in Canada.

I wanted to come back to the point the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin made about the privacy commissioner. I hear what he says about the delicate balance and the challenges that we all have, the minister, the government and all members of Parliament, to ensure we have the correct balance between our national security objectives and the privacy of Canadians.

There were long discussions with the privacy commissioner when she came before the committee with some ideas for amendments. In fact there is quite a good rapport with the privacy commissioner. The government and the minister understand the importance of privacy in relation to her portfolio. They see it as an integral part of what she does.

What the government had some difficulty with was enshrining a reference to the minister's responsibilities with respect to privacy, which already are dealt with in a privacy act and which would seem to present the position that privacy then would trump the Charter of Rights, access to information and the relations we have with other countries, the treaties and agreements with them. That was the only point.

The minister has responsibility with respect to privacy. The privacy commissioner respects that and will continue to respect it. We will continue to work with her in a very constructive way.

[Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act, November 17th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Central Nova touched on the gun registry, which of course generates a lot of emotion and different points of view among all Canadians. Certainly, all Canadians, I suspect, are worried and troubled by the cost overruns and the way the moneys were expended.

There is an adage that my mother used to tell me that I think still has some wisdom. She said if a house costs too much to build, does one burn the house down or look at where to move to, and what the forward program would be? There is a concept that I also learned in economics called sunk cost.

What we should be looking at as Canadians is the gun registry today. We should have accountability if there are cost overruns because people have mismanaged or not managed it optimally. I would like to inform the member of something he may not be aware of. Right now, the gun registry is receiving approximately 15,000 inquiries a week from the police across Canada. If there are 15,000 queries of this gun registry, does that not indicate that it is of some value to people? Why else would they be asking?

Second, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police have steadfastly supported the gun registry. Even now the Canadian Police Association has passed a resolution supporting the gun registry.

I am wondering if the member is aware that the government has committed and managed down the costs to a level of half of what the costs were. In fact, we committed to keeping the gun registry costs at an annualized basis of less than $25 million a year and total program costs at around $80 million a year.

I am wondering if the member is aware of that and the kinds of inquiries that are coming from police across this country.

[Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act, November 17th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity a few weeks ago to visit Windsor-Detroit and meet with the member and his colleague to discuss some of the issues.

Clearly, the border at Windsor-Detroit is a huge and important trade corridor for our country where much of our goods and people traverse back and forth between Canada and the United States. Resources are a never ending issue. We feel that the response is a pretty good one at the current time. These matters are always under review by the Government of Canada and the minister to determine if more resources would assist in the expediting of people and goods across that important crossing.

[Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act, November 17th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin for his question. I will try to respond briefly, but this is quite a complex and difficult question.

With respect to the member's question, the bill has not in any way changed the current powers of the minister. There is a demarcation with respect to matters of national defence and public safety.

We felt the Bloc amendment was redundant because the minister is required by the act to act within the powers of the Constitution and within the realm of those powers that are within the jurisdiction of the federal government. The focus really is on dealing and responding to public threats in the sense of coordinating a federal government response. That threat could be a natural disaster, a man made disaster or an imminent threat to the safety and security of Canadians.

Ottawa has the operations centre which rises to a certain level of preparedness, depending on the threat assessment. All agencies and departments of the federal government are represented in that operations centre, based on advice from the threat that is determined to be posed to the security of Canadians. Within the operations centre, depending on the level of the threat, someone from the Department of National Defence would be there. If they had to be engaged for whatever reason, then that decision would filter up through a committee of cabinet and then ultimately to the Prime Minister in terms of how to respond. There is a vetting of the response.

When we are dealing with matters of national security, armed insurrection or a threat from outside the country, be mindful that this is an escalation and a threat which is clearly dealt with at the highest level of government through a very rigorous process as defined within the government itself.

[Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act, November 17th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, what we are trying to do in this Parliament especially, which is what we should do in all parliaments, is provide opposition members with the full opportunity to become engaged in the discussion and debate on various bills before the House. We will continue to do that.

The best way I can explain why the government moved an amendment at report stage to remove the amendment put forward by the Bloc and approved by the committee is that, in the context of the bill, the government felt that it was fairly innocuous and redundant since the powers of the minister are clearly laid out in the bill and the minister, obviously, would not intrude into areas of provincial jurisdiction because that would run counter to the Constitution of Canada.

The government was concerned that it might be precedent setting. In the area of emergency response or public safety, the cooperation between the provinces, the territories and the federal government is at a very high level. In fact, the critic for the Bloc talked about when he was the minister of public safety in the province of Quebec during the ice storm in Quebec and the flooding in the Saguenay and the high level of cooperation between the various federal departments and provincial agencies.

I was pleased that some of the members of the opposition were able to elaborate that this was not precedent setting, that each consideration of this clause would be looked at on every bill because it would not surprise me in the least if the Bloc would propose an amendment similar to this for other legislation. For other legislation it might prove more difficult because clauses that are in statutes are presumed to have a special meaning if it is already part of the bill. So that was the rationale behind that.

[Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act, November 17th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of Bill C-6, an act to establish the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and to amend or repeal certain acts.

First, I would like to congratulate the chair and the members of the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

Over the past few weeks, the committee has had in-depth discussions on Bill C-6. These discussions allowed us to better understand the issues relating to public safety and emergency preparedness.

It became clear that the members of all the parties represented in the House of Commons share a deep and unfailing commitment to the safety of our country and its citizens.

Even though the government did not always agree with the comments made and the amendments proposed, we were aware that committee members were trying to make the bill as effective as possible.

I would also like to acknowledge the participation of the Privacy Commissioner who appeared as a witness at the committee hearings and also wrote directly to the minister. The Privacy Commissioner raised concerns about protecting the privacy of Canadians in the context of examining Bill C-6. She reminded us about the constant tension between privacy and other rights, including the right to security and how we need to strike an appropriate balance.

I would like to reiterate the minister's response to the Privacy Commissioner because I know many Canadians are concerned that the priorities of public safety may somehow compromise the privacy of personal information.

It is worth reminding the House that, like all legislation, Bill C-6 is subject to the Constitution and the Charter of Rights. We have drafted the legislation carefully to ensure that in the delivery of public safety, personal privacy is protected appropriately.

The proposed legislation provides no new legal authorities to collect, disclose or share information within or outside the agencies that are part of the Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness portfolio.

Indeed, the sole purpose of the provisions on the exchange of information is to ensure that all relevant and authorized information on public safety is communicated as it should be.

As the Auditor General pointed out last spring, Canada must be more efficient in the exchange of critical and timely information between the bodies that are responsible for our safety.

The proposed legislation would contribute to a better sharing of that information without infringing upon the privacy rights of Canadians in any way.

I would now like to comment briefly on the three amendments to the bill approved by the committee.

The first amendment concerns clause 5, the coordination and leadership of the Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness portfolio. The committee saw fit to approve an amendment that includes a non-exhaustive list of entities for which the minister is responsible. The government did not support the amendment.

We contended that modern legislation does not include all the various organizations that a portfolio may include. There are good reasons to respect this legal convention, particularly in the context of the responsibilities of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

In a rapidly evolving security environment, where the government needs the flexibility to respond to emerging threats by adjusting structures or creating new ones, we believe it made more sense not to list any entities.

Even if the list had been clearly illustrative, we feared the casual reader may still believe such a list constituted the complete portfolio. We were concerned that, despite the best of intentions, an incomplete list might therefore lead to confusion rather than clarity. We also argued that other acts clearly spell out relationships between the minister and various agencies, such as the RCMP. As a result, we saw no value added to be gained by including the names of some entities in clause 5 of Bill C-6.

I would also like to make clear that Bill C-6 does not give the government authority to add or subtract names from such a list. This authority comes from the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act.

All that said, the government does respect the will of the committee and accepts the amendment as approved.

The second amendment, which was proposed by the Bloc, was also problematic and once again the government did not support it. The amendment concerns clause 6, which explains the functions of the minister. The clause was amended at committee to state explicitly that the minister would exercise his or her powers “...with due regard to the powers conferred on the provinces and territories...”.

In fact, the government has sufficient concern about the amendment that we sought an amendment at report stage to strike the wording from Bill C-6.

I would emphasize very clearly, however, that despite our concerns with this amendment, the Government of Canada fully understands that respect for provincial jurisdiction is a fundamental principle of our Constitution. It goes without saying that the Minister of Public Safety will continue to respect provincial jurisdiction in the exercise of her powers.

The public safety file is one on which there has been a strong history of cooperation between the federal government and the provinces. In fact, Bill C-6 contains a provision expressly calling for continued cooperation between the two levels of government.

As I indicated in my remarks in support of the government's amendment at report stage, the Bloc amendment to clause 6, in the view of both the minister and the government, is redundant and unnecessary. It is redundant because ministerial powers must be exercised within federal constitutional jurisdiction in any event. It is unnecessary because clause 4(1) of Bill C-6 already sets out that “...the powers, duties and functions of the Minister extend to and include all matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction...”. This wording establishes the scope of the powers of the minister under the Constitution and is the standard limiting formulation in departmental statutes. Clause 4(1) is a legislative drafting convention.

As members are aware, this matter was given full consideration and debate during report stage. In keeping with the principles of democracy that Canadians hold dearly, the hon. members in the House voted down the government's amendment at report stage and the government respects their decision.

The government will, therefore, treat the Bloc amendment to clause 6 as, at most, a for greater certainty clause, a reminder that the minister cooperates with provincial authorities in the exercise of their respective jurisdictions in areas of national and local importance.

In speaking to this matter at report stage, hon. members of both the Conservative and New Democratic Parties emphasized that the amendment pertaining to jurisdiction should not be viewed as precedent setting for other legislation, but rather, as indicated by the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh, amendments of this nature must be considered on a case by case basis. The government also endorses this approach for, as I indicated previously, how such an amendment would affect other legislation depends upon the very nature of the matter being legislated.

The third amendment deals with the last clause of the bill. Clause 38 is about the coming into force of the act. The committee felt that the original wording of that clause could allow the government to give effect to certain sections of the act at different times.

The purpose of the amendment was to ensure that all the provisions of the act, with the exception of sections 35 and 36, would come into force at the same time.

I am pleased to say that the amendment received all party support. This unanimity, to my mind, stands as a positive symbol for the cordial nature of the entire deliberations.

On that note, I would like to thank the committee members for their thoughtful analysis. Even if the government did not agree with all the proposed amendments, we never doubted for a moment that the committee had the best interests of Canadians at heart.

There can be no doubt that we must create the department of public safety and emergency preparedness. Our world, with its vast range of natural and man-made threats, demands a strategic and effective response to protect the safety and security of Canadians. The proposed legislation provides the necessary legal foundation for the department and it is my hope that, in the interests of all Canadians, it receive the full support of members of the House.