Larry Bagnell

[Public Safety Act, 2002, November 18th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I want to talk today specifically about the Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention implementation act part of Bill C-17 for the next nine and a half minutes.

Since 1925, the Geneva protocol has prohibited germ warfare and the use of biological weapons. The convention on the prohibition of the development, production and stockpiling of bacteriological, biological and toxic weapons and on their destruction, better known as the BTWC, bans the possession of such weapons altogether.

The BTWC, which was concluded in 1972 and entered into force in 1975, was the first global treaty to prohibit an entire category of weapons of mass destruction. It represents a universal norm and is an important pillar of international peace and security.

Canada, which signed and ratified the BTWC in 1972, strongly supports this convention. Canada attaches great importance to full compliance with all the provisions of the convention and fully supports its purposes and objectives.

Canada does not have an offensive biological weapons program.

Canada has long sought to strengthen the international norm against biological weapons. To this end, it has participated actively in negotiations for legally binding compliance protocol to the BTWC, which would institute a system of declarations, inspection visits and investigations and create an international organization for the prohibition of biological weapons to monitor respect for the provisions of the convention.

A protocol of this nature would also require states, parties, to enact specific legislation, creating national authorities to implement its provisions.

To our profound regret, negotiations for such a protocol collapsed in July, 2001, after seven years of work, denying the world its best chance to achieve a mechanism to impede the development and spread of biological weapons.

Subsequently, last December in Geneva, at the fifth BTWC review conference, the Canadian delegation worked to promote an outcome which would have contributed to the convention's integrity and vitality by building bridges and encouraging those countries with the requisite expertise to assist others in enacting or improving their national legislation, by advocating an enhanced review process and by working for the adoption of new measures to strengthen the convention, including a viable way forward to resume negotiations for a multilateral, legally binding compliance mechanism for the convention.

It was unfortunate that the review conference was unable to achieve an outcome and that it was forced to suspend work for a year.

Let me however assure members that Canada has not given up efforts to reinforce the global ban on germ weapons. During the past year we have worked closely with like-minded countries to prepare for the resumed review conference, which concluded successfully on November 15.

Canada is pleased that the conference endorsed a multilateral inter-sessional work program that will help to strengthen the effectiveness and implementation of the BTWC and will continue to participate actively through this agreed inter-sessional work program leading to the next review conference in 2006.

We have also taken a number of steps, on a strictly national basis, with the review to reinforcing the treaty. To cite but one example, the Minister of Foreign Affairs recently sent letters to his counterparts in more than 40 states, which are not party to the convention, urging them to ratify or accede to the BTWC.

In the past year, many countries have indicated that in the light of events of September 11 and in the light of subsequent bioterrorism attacks using anthrax, they are in the process of revising or supplementing their own legislation relevant to biological weapons.

National enforcement efforts cannot substitute for an international compliance mechanism aimed at preventing the development of biological weapons but in themselves, national efforts are still valuable and necessary.

Export and import controls, licensing, domestic inspection, verification and policing all complement and buttress the global ban on biological weapons.

Article IV of the BTWC requires state parties, in accordance with their constitutional processes, to take measures to prohibit and prevent the development, production, stockpiling, acquisition or retention of banned substances and articles in their territory, jurisdiction or control.

In view of the collapse of the protocol and negotiations in July 2001 and the terrorist threat that emerged only two months later, it is now appropriate to go beyond the strict requirements of the convention and to supplement our existing legislation with an act that specifically prohibits both biological weapons and related agents.

The biological and toxin weapons convention implementation act will put Canada at the forefront of efforts to prevent biological weapons proliferation and bioterrorism. It will help Canada fulfill its obligations under the BTWC more comprehensively with respect to domestic law, ensuring that the conventions ban is respected not only by the Government of Canada, but also by individuals, organizations and institutions in Canada.

The vast majority of biological agents and types of equipment that may be employed in the manufacture of biological weapons are dual use. That is to say, these substances and articles have a legitimate, even vital, role in fields such as science, medicine, pharmaceuticals, biotechnology and agriculture. Likewise, bio-defence programs intended to develop detecting devices or vaccines, antidotes and protective gear to defend against biological weapons attacks require biological agents and equipment. Dual use agents and equipment are therefore essential to our health, prosperity and security and for the advancement of knowledge.

The BTWC recognizes the dual use nature of these substances and articles by allowing agents that have prophylactic, protective or other peaceful purposes in equipment not designed for hostile purposes. These exemptions for legitimate use are preserved in the legislation.

The BTWC implementation act will therefore provide the legal basis to create a licensing regime for a more complete control of biological substances and articles. It will also permit the establishment of a responsible authority. It sets out the powers of inspectors charged with enforcing the act.

The legislation has been carefully drafted to ensure that Canadian procedures will be compatible with any eventual international compliance mechanism which Canada is continuing to advocate. While the licensing regime and regulations should be rigorous, they must not be excessively burdensome to legitimate users of biological agents.

Just as the BTWC is a framework convention, the BTWC implementation act is framework legislation. We expect that the process of elaborating regulations and of establishing the responsible authority and inspectorate will require intensive study and consultation with many sectors, including industry, the farming sector, universities, medical and scientific communities, research institutes as well as the provinces and territories and other interested parties. It will be important to get the details right. A one size fits all solution will not work.

The level of scrutiny and security required for a containment facility studying highly contagious diseases would obviously not be appropriate for research institutes studying low risk pathogens.

While the burdens of the act imposed on legitimate users of biological weapons will not be onerous, the penalty for illegitimate users will be severe. The development, production, stockpiling, acquisition, retention, use or transfer of biological weapons or biological agents not having peaceful purposes will be an offence punishable by a suitably stern sentence of up to 10 years imprisonment and a fine of $1 million. The act also sets out lesser penalties for interference with its application. These provisions will help to deter anyone tempted to acquire or to assist others, whether they are terrorists or foreign powers, to acquire biological weapons.

This act will make Canada and the world a safer place. It will help impede the development and spread of biological weapons globally. It will show that Canada is committed to the fight against terrorism. At the same time, it will underscore our active support for the BTWC, for a rules based, multilateral approach to non-proliferation arms control and disarmament consistent with Canada's historic role in furthering co-operative activity.

[Public Safety Act, 2002, November 18th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, that is the exact point I was getting at, that these amendments have been made and that the only screening now is for very serious transportation and security purposes. I am amazed at the member from the Alliance. If we found, somewhat incidentally, that a person was wanted for murder or kidnapping, would we not want to arrest that person?

Let me go on to my other questions. He can review the amendments that I read later to see if they limit the powers drastically to what is acceptable for his party.

One point he made was that we did not give any details on the hoaxes. I would just like to give some details once again that are in the package. The proposed maximum penalties for these offences would also be amended to provide increases proportionate to the harm caused. The maximum penalty for the base offence is five years imprisonment. However if the hoax caused actual bodily harm, the maximum penalty would be increased to 10 years imprisonment. If the hoax caused death, the maximum penalty would be increased to life imprisonment. What more details is the member looking for in that area?

My second question is related to explosives. The act would regulate the importation, manufacture, storage and sale of commercial explosives along with their transportation. I gather from the member's speech that he is not opposed to putting this into an act to regulate the use of hose explosives specifically. I am not worried about the other ammunition such as firearms but I am concerned about these in particular because I had a constituent within the last few weeks blown up in a terrorist explosion. I want to make sure he is not opposed to us trying to take every precaution possible related to explosives.

[Public Safety Act, 2002, November 18th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, first, I refer to the amendments that were in the press release. I have three other questions that I will ask later. This is to see if this is more palatable to the member.

Passenger information could be disclosed to a third party for very restricted use. The impression left by the speech is that it could be collected for any offence and used for minor offences.

These purposes would relate to the mandate of each department or agency. For example, Transport Canada could only disclose information to restricted parties for transportation security purposes, while CSIS and RCMP designated officers could disclose this information to limited parties for specific purposes, including transportation security imminent public safety threats, outstanding warrants, removal orders, compliance with subpoena or court order and counter-terrorism investigation.

The new Public Safety Act, 2002, has proposed the identification of persons for whom a warrant has been issued be removed as a purpose for which the RCMP could obtain air passenger information. With this change the RCMP could only access passenger information for the purpose of transportation security.

While screening passenger lists for transportation security, if the RCMP incidentally discovered a criminal warrant for a serious crime, and that is what the other member was asking, the force would still be able to disclose that information to a peace officer if there was reason to believe it would assist in the execution of a warrant.

Retaining this aspect of the scheme is necessary for public safety because the RCMP needs to take appropriate action if it happens to find a passenger wanted for an outstanding warrant for a serious offence such as murder or kidnapping. With this amendment a much more limited regime would be created for the RCMP which would permit only incidental use of passenger information for warranted purposes, while screening for transportation and security risks.

[Afghanistan, November 8th, 2002]

This is my question, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday the member for Okanagan—Coquihalla stood in the House and stated that a year after the September 11 attacks a Canadian presence is needed in Afghanistan to visibly work with agencies to restore and protect school programs for young Afghan children and women. He also stated that Canada should now help build and maintain the programs that will make liberation in Afghanistan a reality for generations to come.

This gives the impression that the government is not doing its share to help with Afghanistan's reconstruction efforts.

Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Cooperation please outline what the Government of Canada is doing in this regard?

[Wine Industry, November 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, Yukon has great placer gold, but British Columbia has another type of gold. I am pleased to rise today to congratulate the wineries in British Columbia on winning 152 out of the 268 medals handed out at the Canadian Wine Awards.

British Columbia wines are recognized around the world for their fine quality and the strong showing in this year's competition confirms this. This was the second annual award ceremony sponsored by Wine Access magazine. Wineries from across Canada attended the ceremony at the Empress Hotel in Victoria. The wines were judged by a panel of eight Canadian wine writers and tasters in a blind test last August. The categories which included red wine of the year, reflect the increasing sophistication, diversity and quality of domestic Canadian wines.

I ask the House to join me in congratulating all the winners of this year's awards.

[Canadian Coast Guard, November 6th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, there is not as much difference as one might think between Yukon and the St. Lawrence River. We have a boat that goes from Dawson City to Eagle, Alaska. There are a lot of complaints about shoreline erosion. I can definitely sympathize with the member about the effect that this has on fish.

I express my appreciation to all members and the minister for staying for the entire debate. Quite often we have had these debates and the minister, who could do something about the good wisdom that comes from all parties, has not been here. It is very honourable that the minister has been here for the whole debate and I thank him on behalf of us all.

[Canadian Coast Guard, November 6th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, I can only speak about my own region which is very small, but I would agree that more resources need to be provided to that region. Unfortunately, I cannot speak to the big picture because I am just not that familiar with it.

As this debate comes to a close, I would like to provide a short message to the minister's staff and departmental officials, who I hope are watching, on the intent of these debates. We get positive ideas from all sides of the House in these debates. It is very important, if they are going to be useful, that the staff and officials make a compendium of them, go through them, look for good ideas and make a summary for the minister.

I was at a good one of these not long ago. The departmental staff did an excellent job of summarizing the whole exercise. It was provided for the minister and whoever was interested. That shows the real function of these and that they are listening to people from all parties. That is the function of a debate like this. We are here to help the country and to provide good ideas, and I know that especially the opposition wants to ensure that it is being heard. I encourage the staff to do that because I think it helps make this a very positive exercise.

[Canadian Coast Guard, November 6th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, my speech will be very short but as you know, any time there is a debate on resources, I always have to talk about my riding and make sure that we are not forgotten or left out as occurs sometimes.

We have one application for the Coast Guard, as people are asking for more resources. As a result of global warming, the northwest passage is opening up. It is predicted it might be completely open by 2010. This is causing a security problem for Canada. Members probably have heard the three northern MPs speak about it before in relation to national defence. The Coast Guard also has a role.

The passage is opening and now there are ships coming in, various vessels from around the world, sometimes without surveillance. Sometimes they get through without being seen because of course it was all ice and we had no patrols there before. It is very important for a number of reasons that we adjust rapidly to this situation. Unfortunately for certain departments this will require more resources.

The problem is that when ships come in from other countries, they can bring things in their ballasts that will hurt our environment. They can bring illegal immigrants. They can smuggle things in. There have been a number of stories already of how they just pull up to shore and have never been questioned by anybody. They are hurting our environment. They can dump oil.

Most important for our sovereignty, there are countries in the world that do not consider the northern archipelago to be a part of Canada. We see maps of the United States and they do not necessarily see that that is our nation and our land. It is very important for patrols to be a presence to manifest our sovereignty there.

Any time we have any activity, whether it is a Coast Guard vessel or whether it is a just a building where they get supplies, a National Defence presence, a supply depot or a small northern community, it helps show our sovereignty in the area. It makes sure that a very important, huge piece of land, as big as Europe, and all its rich resources, will remain part of Canada.

The Coast Guard is only one piece in this puzzle. There are many players that have important parts. I am sure my colleagues have mentioned the Aurora flights. People have mentioned the National Defence boats. There are also the rangers. I am happy that defence has increased the resources for that. The northern rangers and the northern junior rangers are indigenous people. They are out on the land and sometimes they see things and can report them back to the system, but they are not always on the water where the problems might be.

The Coast Guard, which operates up in that area primarily for safety reasons, does have a role. There is not a simple answer. It is not one person's responsibility. Everyone in an area of scarce resources and thousands and thousands of kilometres of land has to work together and have a system of reporting to each other. The military has to have a good presence. The local indigenous people have to have a good presence, training and contacts where they can report things. Of course the Coast Guard has to play an important role there too.

I hope that my colleagues will be sensitive to the need for the Coast Guard in the north and the valuable role it plays there, and the more and more open water on which it needs to play that role.

[Health Care System, October 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member would like to speak more on this because he has worked on this project for so long. I want to let him know that I wholeheartedly support that. When he started his speech I was meeting with the generic representatives. I have three questions for the hon. member; two easy and one hard.

First, does the hon. member think there have been examples of abuse of the patent rule, pushing it beyond 20 years?

Second, with the U.S. now coming into line with the rest of the world to stop this abuse, will that make it easier for us to get this through Canada?

The hard question is this. If we are the only country in the world that allows this abuse of extending patents, the brand companies might say that it is a great environment for investment and they can protect their patent a lot longer. Therefore we would have a lot more investment in Canada.

[Supply, October 29th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, the chair does not make the decisions of the committee, the whole committee does. If the committee, as an instrument of Parliament, has a majority of members from one party on it, it is because the people elected a majority of people from that party so it is just another expression of the will of the people.