Peter MacKay

[An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, June 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the member who preceded me as well as my colleague from Châteauguay for his participation and work during consideration of this bill. I know he also works very hard on the justice committee.

In my view, the bill boils down to the simple issue of whether we can accomplish all that we set out to do in the protection of animals and still leave the bill in such a way that it protects and provides assurances to legitimate animals users, and by that I mean farmers, hunters, furriers and researchers?

Can we leave all these new protections within the property sections, within the existing sections of the criminal code that provide those colour of right excuses that have long been held very dearly by those individuals in the group I described? The answer to that is yes.

It was interesting that the member for Provencher pointed out that there may be some assurances that were given that might explain the voting that took place here today by rural members of the Liberal caucus. Previously they expressed outrage and seemed quite prepared to vote against their government if the bill was to remain in its current configuration.

That may very well be and we may see some of the discussion that took place on the floor of the House repeated on the floor of the other place. I suspect that may be the case but the behaviour here today was bizarre. I do not say this lightly, but members of the Liberal caucus today who were so adamant before in standing against the government on the legislation did appear a bit like hand shy, whipped puppies when it came to the vote today. There is real concern that the cave-in, which took place, may be the result of a behind the scenes deal.

It goes without saying that Bill C-15B does have some legitimate and positive changes that would bring about a greater sentencing range for those convicted of cruelty to animal offences. In my view and the view of members of the Progressive Conservative Party, there is a need in legislation currently to up the ante and punish those who intentionally abuse or neglect animals.

Cruelty to animals is an issue that has received significant publicity in recent years and months. Psychologists are drawing parallels between children's cruelty to animals and their subsequent cruelty and behaviour toward other humans.

While I am supportive of many elements of the legislation dealing with crimes against animals, there are still legitimate concerns that stem from the decision to remove the current criminal code provisions dealing with animal cruelty from the property sections of the criminal code and create, in essence, a new section.

It was suggested that a new section could also have brought with it the existing protections found in part XI of the criminal code. Those sections permit acts to be done with legal justification, excuse or with colour of right. They go back to the very origins of the drafting of the sections pertaining to animals that were contained in those property definitions.

There is still an opportunity to get it right and to get it right in the first instance. The importance of having those protections is clear. There is a real and legitimate fear on the part of animal users and participants in businesses that require the use of animals and practices that might be perceived by many from an ivory tower perspective to be cruel. I am talking about legitimate practices such as branding, castration, methods of slaughter and methods of medical and scientific research that have a very legitimate practice. Those of the feint of heart and those who may be a bit squeamish about this often sit down and enjoy a nice steak or sport their leather belts and boots. That is the reality.

Providing those protections under the property sections of the code permit acts to be done legitimately within certain parameters that have long been respected, respecting the need to be using safe and fair practices when it comes to animals.

I share the concerns of many Canadians and many members when it comes to definition of animal, involving any animal that has the capacity to feel pain. There was some concession made by the previous minister of justice. There was a spirit I suppose of co-operation and perhaps reasonableness when the current minister's predecessor heard from many stakeholders on this issue.

The previous bill was careful to insert the words “wilful cruelty” and “unnecessary pain and suffering” in the drafting of the bill, yet there was an intransigence when it came to the changing of the issue of property.

Members have expressed concern on behalf of stakeholders and their constituents over the lengthy, protracted and costly litigation that could result in both the criminal and civil courts. The potential private prosecutions could be costly and paralyzing. We all know that when a dispute disintegrates into this type of litigation it can literally bankrupt the participants. It can bankrupt the individual who stands accused. Regardless of the outcome the end result might well be that many farmers, fishers, and those involved in the fur industry and privately funded scientific research face bankruptcy by the time the issue is resolved.

Protection is being denied. Neither the Minister of Justice nor anyone on the government side of the House to date has made a legitimate case as to why we cannot achieve all the protections and necessary elements. No one has explained why we cannot up the ante when it comes to sentencing and give prosecutorial teams or individuals greater ability to hold to task and bring to justice persons who deliberately or recklessly cause harm to animals. All that could be accomplished by leaving these offences in the property section of the criminal code.

The fears people have with respect to the firearms registry are apropos to what has happened because similar guarantees were given at the time of the passing of Bill C-68. The government claimed it would only cost $85 million. That has gone out the window. The cost has ballooned to over $800 million and is climbing. Yet the registry is still not up and running.

Was the gun registry a legitimate expenditure? Was it good value for the dollar? Are the Hells Angels lining up at kiosks at the mall to participate in the gun registry? Absolutely not. Will criminals give their fingerprints before robbing houses? No, they will not. Will they register their guns before using them for illegitimate purposes? Absolutely not. It is based on a completely false premise.

That is why members of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada do not support changing or tinkering with the gun registry. Making changes to the gun registry at this point would be like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic . The ill-founded, ill-conceived, overblown, expensive and bureaucratic gun registry system will eventually collapse under its own weight. The police cannot rely on it. It will not achieve the public purpose for which it was sold to Canadians in a time of heightened awareness and fear about firearms. The assurances given to Canadians including the Canadian Police Association among other groups have been completely abrogated.

Why should we trust the government on this one? The government says legitimate animal stakeholders should not be concerned because protections would be there. I will make the point clear: There would be no compensation for individuals who wound up before the courts for legitimate practices concerning their animals, just as there is no compensation for gun owners who have their property seized. We are opening a door that is unnecessary and that may result in costly and protracted litigation. For what reason are we doing it? We are doing it for reasons that cannot be enunciated, explained or articulated by the government.

I regret that the Progressive Conservative Party will not be supporting the legislation. We had an opportunity to get it right. Perhaps those in the other place will have more success in convincing the government that we have an obligation to recognize that Canadians, particularly those in rural Canada, have needs that must be recognized and supported by the government.

[An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, June 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate at the outset that the Progressive Conservative Party supports many elements of the bill, particularly those which put in place a more severe sentencing scheme and raise the bar as far as prosecution of those who deliberately choose to abuse animals is concerned, but the problem, as has been pointed out by previous speakers and throughout the debate, is that it takes the animal sections out of the property sections of the criminal code, thus removing some of the protections for the very legitimate and commonly accepted practices for animal husbandry and for scientific experiments.

My question directly to the Minister of Justice is: What assurances are there for those involved in scientific experimentation with animals, those in the fishing and agriculture communities, the dairy farmers, the fur industry, those who are currently afforded these protections of colour of right excuse and justification?

Is it not fair to say that all the objectives with respect to the prosecution and the deterrence elements of the legislation, and it is uncommon for the Liberal government to put emphasis on deterrence, could be achieved by leaving the property section intact and giving those protections to those individuals who are not the target of the bill?

[Criminal Code, May 31st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-292. I am also pleased to follow the hon. member for Windsor—St. Clair. He has given an insightful and informed commentary on this legislation as he so often does. I respect his opinion immensely.

Bill C-292 is meant to bring about changes to the criminal code. It is aimed specifically at the issue of selling wildlife. The hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock—Langley has put a great deal of time, effort and passion into bringing this issue before the House of Commons. I applaud and salute her for that.

The bill would make it an offence to sell wildlife, wildlife parts, as well as threatened or endangered species. The bill's most noble purpose is to protect wildlife and, in particular, endangered species that are on the verge of disappearing from the planet.

The Speaker of the House is a great lover of animals. I suspect all members of the House of Commons and a majority of Canadians would embrace anything that would move towards protecting and ensuring the continued survival of these species, these important residents of the global village.

The intent of the legislation is to act in accordance with, not contrary to or not to supplement or in any way undermine provincial legislation. It is meant to work cheek and jowl with existing provincial legislation.

According to the member for South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, the bill is meant to cover acts not carried out with a licensed permit. It is not meant to apply to acts carried out with a licensed permit or exemption order. There is a specific attempt by the drafter to address the jurisdictional issue and the issue as it pertains to aboriginal peoples.

Bill C-292 would give provincial wildlife authorities and crown counsel the option to proceed by way of provincial wildlife legislation or with the new sections of the criminal code. The jurisdictional issue is there and is optional. It is within the discretion of the provincial crown to work in conjunction with police or wildlife enforcement officers.

Anyone convicted under the offence of the criminal code would be guilty of an indictable offence and subject to the maximum two year sentence on the first offence and three years of incarceration for a subsequent offence.

It was mentioned by the member for Windsor—St. Clair that there is some question as to whether we should amend the hon. member's legislation to make it a hybrid offence. Should we allow the expansion of the sentencing range that could be meted out? Surely there are greater and lesser offences as they pertain to wildlife. There is greater gravity in terms of the volume, the number of individuals and the number of animals affected by the offence itself.

If the animal in question were a threatened or endangered species, the maximum would increase to four years and eight years for subsequent offences. By giving a greater range of sentence it might have a greater degree of deterrent effect.

It is important to promote animal welfare which this does. The bill encompasses and embraces that sentiment. There are groups around the world doing good work, such as the World Wildlife Federation, Ducks Unlimited, many others. I am sure she will find great support within their ranks.

The point was well made that the world is expanding. We look at endangered species in all parts of the world, not just within the Canadian jurisdiction, but in the jungles of Africa, the oceans of the world, the fields, the forests, and in all regions. There is a larger responsibility that should be taken up by governments in every nation.

The legislation includes such activity as the enterprise of crime that sadly is happening at a disproportionate rate in some countries, wherein individuals are purposely targeting the sale of wildlife, whether it be hides, tusks, trophy heads or body parts. This is insidious greed and the motive behind much of the activity surrounding the sale of animal parts.

It is very timely that this legislation is coming forward. It is something that I certainly believe deserves greater examination at the committee level because it keys in on and enunciates in the criminal code a deterrent effect. It puts into legislation this type of specific crime.

As was noted earlier, the punishment scale is one that is important to examine and the author of the bill might consider this latitude and perhaps an examination of greater latitude. Making offences indictable might tie the hands of the prosecution when considering plea bargains as well as those of the sentencing judge when determining the appropriate measures that should follow. A balanced approach, I suggest, would be to make this a hybrid offence, giving the prosecution and the enforcement officers greater ability to bring about the deterrent and the desired effect with a greater latitude in sentencing.

The bill attempts to define the threatened or endangered species, which I think is an important substance to the bill. The author of the legislation seems to have taken, and I hope she takes no offence to this, a bit of a Liberal approach when giving the Minister of the Environment the ability to designate an animal or endangered species that is threatened. That is consistent with the species at risk bill. It may be an unintended effect that the hon. member has included in her bill, because the clause in essence states:

Where, after consulting with the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, the Minister...is satisfied that a species of wildlife is threatened with imminent extinction, the Minister may...designate the species to be...endangered--

The language contained in the clause needs to be tightened up. It needs to perhaps take away the sole power of the minister to make these decisions. It is one that is inconsistent with science and with the work that has been done at the committee level to date. The phrase “consulting with” seems ambiguous.

A change could be along the lines of replacing those words with the following: based upon the recommendation of the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, the minister may, by regulation, designate the species to be an endangered species for the purpose of this part. That, I suggest, would be more in keeping with what experts, scientists and those working in the field have recommended in relation to the current endangered species act.

Having said that, let me say that no private member's bill is perfect. Clearly no government bill is perfect. I think the hon. member is fully aware of the process and the opportunity that exists at committee level to address some of these issues. This is not to take away in any sense the merit and the value of the bill she has placed before the House. We do support a science based approach to the listing of species. Scientists, not politicians, are far better placed to decide which species are truly at risk.

I do want to refer in my remarks to the comments made by the member for Dauphin--Swan River, in particular when he spoke of the issue as it pertains to aboriginal people. I think he addressed the issue in a very straightforward way and the bill does encompass that approach. Its intent is to clearly indicate that it will not abrogate or derogate from any existing aboriginal treaty rights of aboriginal peoples in Canada who would be covered under the current situation.

The bill speaks to that issue. There has to be a clear approach for aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians when we are going to these extraordinary lengths of identifying the problem when it pertains to endangered species. In many cases the necessity to protect endangered species overrides having a specialized approach as it pertains to the treatment of animals in particular. There should be no exemptions and again that is perhaps something that should be examined. We should be hearing from the aboriginal community on that issue.

In conclusion, I support the hon. member's bill, as do members of the Progressive Conservative Party. We look forward to seeing the bill brought forward. We suggest and hope that all members of the House of Commons will similarly voice their support. She has brought forward a good bill with a straightforward objective. This is exactly the type of legislation that we should be dealing with in private members' business.

[Competition Act, May 31st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to speak to this bill and to follow my colleague from Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. As is always the case, she delivered a very thoughtful and insightful speech regarding this legislation.

Bill C-23 amends the Competition Act and the Competition Tribunal Act. Its purpose is to maintain and encourage competition in Canada, surely something this government, as previous governments, should be actively pursuing. It therefore plays a central role in our Canadian economy. The role is becoming increasingly important because we are becoming more global as a nation in terms of our trade, direction and access to foreign markets. The number of mergers is increasing and many sectors of activities are converging in the business world.

The amendments which will be brought about as a result of Bill C-23 were proposed to make it easier for the government to co-operate with foreign competition tribunals. Specifically, it is fair to say the global economy is more important now. Governments have the ability to co-operate with each other when dealing with multinational organizations. Bill C-23 was introduced to streamline the competition tribunal process. Any process dealing with quasi-judicial bodies must be streamlined to make it more effective.

The bill was introduced to broaden the tribunal's ability to issue temporary orders. The competition commissioner and tribunal need to be able to react immediately to situations, even if the actions are temporary, to put cease and desist orders in place and to allow some kind of remediation to occur.

Bill C-23 has tough new measures to deal with anti-competition practices in the airline industry. It is very timely. Canadians across the country know the difficult times the airline industry has been through. The demise of Canada 3000 is a case in point. Although the competition commissioner was in that instance prepared to put cease and desist orders in place, the process of applying for the order and having to put it in place is often not quick enough to stop the damage that takes place through the predatory and overtly anti-competitive practices that sometimes occur.

One concern about the Competition Act coming from the House industry committee process is that the privacy rights to access are questionable. Private parties must have the right to apply directly to the competition tribunal for remedies concerning refusals to deal, tied selling, market restrictions and exclusive dealings.

It is important for people to be able to challenge what is considered to be fair practices by the competitor trying to put out smaller competitors simply through the use of these kinds of tactics. It is also important to the well-being of members of the small business community to be able to fight back. This legislation will provide them with an opportunity to challenge larger businesses that are trying to put them out of business. It levels the playing field and arms the small businesses with a form of protection, a blanket approach.

It is important for companies, corporations and small businesses as well as individuals to have the ability to advance their causes even though the competition tribunal may not think they are as important as other issues. They are permitted under this act to force that issue at times when they may be giving lesser priority.

As in many cases, once something is put on the back burner the damage may already be done for delay can be the deadliest form of denial. Private access also means that if the competition commissioner feels that something is not as important as, say, airline restructuring, it can go through the process and not be tied up for years.

In many instances we have seen, coming from the field myself, that the lawyers who get involved use the process as a weapon essentially against their adversaries, such as tying the issue up, filing motions, making appeals, dragging the issue out. The costs are often prohibitive. Very often in civil cases and in certain instances in the criminal court the costs can result in a real injustice, an injustice that never sees resolution or the light of day.

Bill C-23 will create additional case law that will provide the business community with a better understanding of what the laws of the land are and how they might fall under the practices considered not to be in the best interests of competition. It will also develop case law that can be used for the furtherance of fair business practices. It would result, I suspect and submit, in precedent and stare decisis in the court that will set the bar, set the standard.

The act inevitably will result in a flurry of legal activity and challenges that will test the parameters of the bill. That is healthy and to be expected. Members of parliament should understand fully that passing new laws will result in challenges. That should never be a bar or attempt to dissuade lawmakers from doing what they are expected to do.

Bill C-23 in particular will put in place new penalties, including fines of up to $15 million for an airline acting in an anti-competitive fashion. This could result clearly in taking someone out of the competition altogether and should act as a real deterrent. To use the criminal and civil codes as a standard, deterrence is an important element in putting these parameters in place for the way in which businesses conduct themselves.

One of the concerns that was voiced about the Competition Act was that the legislation had no teeth to allow the competition commissioner to respond in a way that would stop predatory behaviour. The legislation finally will contain some teeth so that the competition commissioner will have meaningful input into keeping anti-competitive behaviour at bay and real consequences when that line is crossed.

The ability of the competition commissioner to extend cease and desist orders beyond the current 80 days is also very important. It is important because of the time it takes to prepare a case and to bring the complaint against the competitor. It is also very timely and allows the application, which sometimes has not been processed before the cease and desist order expires, to come forward.

In conclusion the Progressive Conservative Party is very pleased to see the extension. We are pleased to see the amendments contained in the bill. It makes the process and the legislation more meaningful. It adds more pith and substance to what is currently in place to protect competition and businesses, large and small. It is an important bill for those reasons that have been set out and the reasons enunciated by other members of parliament.

We must ensure that the bill is passed in a timely fashion. To do otherwise would be irresponsible. As the clock is ticking and time is running out, we urge the government to undertake to pass the bill forthwith. We must make sure that competition, particularly in the airline industry, is real and is healthy. For those reasons the Progressive Conservative Party fully supports Bill C-23.

[Petitions, May 31st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have the pleasure and the honour to present a petition on behalf of constituents in northern Nova Scotia, particularly in Guysborough county, from areas such as Guysborough Town, Canso, Halfway Cove, Cooks Cove, and Seal Harbour, The petitioners call upon the government to revisit its approach, and the minister of fisheries in particular, towards Canso and the way in which enterprise allocation has been treated.

The people in this part of Nova Scotia and Atlantic Canada do not want to be dependent. They certainly do not want to be defeatist in their attitude. They want an opportunity to be full participants in the economy. They want a chance to work. Saving the Seafreez Canso plant will save the town. I hope the minister of fisheries will respond appropriately.

[Fisheries, May 31st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans does not understand the problems facing Canso, Nova Scotia, or perhaps he has chosen to ignore them.

The Canso Seafreez plant does not have access to reasonable quantities of enterprise allocations. The minister's assertions regarding the 45 tonnes is wrong and uninformed. If he would take the time to read a letter from the president, Bill Barry, he would realize this.

The minister has in his hands the ability to change this inequity. When will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans commit to finding a long term sustainable solution for Canso? Will he do something quick?

[Government Contracts, May 31st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, this is coming from the Deputy Prime Minister who wants to wrap himself in the flag and was against Meech Lake. He should spare us the righteous indignation.

When will the Deputy Prime Minister stop rolling his eyes, shrugging his shoulders, blaming journalists, bureaucrats, his own caucus and the opposition and do something to show some ethical leadership?

Last night the Prime Minister said he admitted to gross mismanagement of taxpayers' dollars. What is his plan to recover the money? Will he turn over the evidence to the RCMP? What will the Deputy Prime Minister himself do about it?

[Government Contracts, May 31st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is on record now a number of times stating that his Liberal sponsorship programs kept the country together. In fact he has also now admitted that there is possible criminal wrongdoing in doling out the dough to Liberal donors.

Can the Deputy Prime Minister point to one single piece of evidence that somehow proves that pumping hundreds of millions of dollars to friends and relatives of the Liberal Party has anything to do with national unity?

[Public Safety Act, 2002, May 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from British Columbia for his remarks. He has given a thoughtful and detailed analysis of the shortcomings and the dangers associated with this legislation. He has pointed out the lack of the government's ability to justify the need for the bill, to bring forward logic behind cutting off these interim orders, and to remove some of the safeguards that exist under existing legislation.

A number of members who have spoken have highlighted the fact that we already have in place an Emergencies Act. Let us look at the chronology and the history of how that particular legislation came about. The government House leader and other members present who have more history in this place will be quick to acknowledge that the Emergencies Act replaced the War Measures Act. The War Measures Act, under the Liberal administration of the time, was invoked and led to perhaps one of the most egregious assaults on civil liberties that this country has experienced.

There were numerous detentions and arrests that aggravated and inflamed the passions of Quebecers in particular, but Canadians generally. In invoking this type of Draconian approach and the denial of civil liberties, Canadians bore witness to a sad and dark chapter of Canadian history.

When one goes back further an example comes to mind and that is the Steven Truscott case. An individual was sentenced to hang in a judicial process where disclosure was not mandatory and where there were many shortcomings that led to egregious errors in law and almost cost young Steven Truscott his life.

I do not point out that type of example to torque up or engage in rhetoric, but to exemplify the fundamental breaches that could occur when there are parameters of the law that are stretched and ignored, which is what could happen in instances if the bill were to pass in its present form. There could be instances where basic rights could be denied such as the rights to enjoy privacy, freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention, and the free use of a person's property. That is how fundamental these infringements may become.

Many members who have spoken have pointed very quickly and earnestly to the declaration of controlled military zones and the ramifications that could flow from such declarations. What we are talking about here, because of the nebulous language contained in the bill, is that by simply moving a single piece of military equipment into any region, province or property within our nation's boundaries a declaration could be made deeming that area, in the immediate vicinity of this military vehicle, a controlled military zone. Being deemed a controlled military zone would create certain ramifications that would have grave implications for human rights and liberties. That is of concern when one examines the context of what happened in APEC, Quebec City, and what might happen in Kananaskis.

There is some question as to the timing, the need and the necessity for bringing this legislation forward now. In the aftermath of September 11, as all members rightly have been quick to point out, we are living in a brave new world. We are living in a new environment that recognizes the grave consequences and the real tangible threat that is out there, yet we have seen legislation passed hastily through the House in Bill C-36.

There was great rush and trepidation on the part of the Liberal government to bring forward Bill C-42 which encompassed many of the same elements as the bill we see before us. One could say that to a large extent Bill C-55 is a stripped down version of Bill C-42. Bill C-42 was part of this crass rush to bring in legislation that was supposed to take advantage of the prevailing public attitude and fear that existed.

Thankfully calmer thoughts and introspection have prevailed. What we see with Bill C-55, though, is a very dangerous piece of legislation, particularly when we look at the new powers that would be placed in the hands of ministers. A single minister would have the ability to make these designations and judgments based on information that could be very nebulous, could in fact be secret and could be withheld from parliament or from an individual who might fall victim to the enactment of this type of arbitrary power.

What is perhaps most fundamentally offensive and disturbing about elements of this bill is that once again we see in this legislation a deliberate effort on the part of the drafters, and therefore on the part of the government, to circumvent the role of parliament for scrutiny and for responsible criticism and questioning of the government's actions in the state of an emergency. What this does is waters down what might be deemed an emergency.

Under the current legislation the government rightly has to justify itself. It has to come before parliament within a very short period of time and say that the existing circumstances are so grave that the legislation is necessary. In the aftermath of September 11 there was no such attempt by the government to bring forward a request to invoke the Emergencies Act.

Reflecting on the sentiment of this nation and our brothers and sisters in the United States, clearly there was panic afoot. Yet even in that atmosphere there was no attempt by the government to declare the Emergencies Act in effect in Canada.

What, pray tell, is behind the government's intent to bring in a piece of legislation that is a watered down, interim measure that falls somewhere between no emergency and no need to invoke that type of legislation and something where the government can make a decision to invoke very severe and arbitrary powers without coming before parliament and without bringing it to the House for a vote where the people's representatives are given an opportunity to ask relevant questions, to press the government to justify its actions, to do what parliament is supposed to do in its finest hour, which is to ensure that people's rights are protected, that we are invoking due process and that we are in fact following the democratic process?

There is much to be discussed. There is much answer that the government must provide to convince members present. The previous speaker referred to the fact that there is much opposition and not only in the ranks of assembled members of parliament. Clearly groups that we have heard from around the country share these concerns and are looking forward to the occasion in which they might come before a parliamentary committee to force the government to bring forward its justification for the bill in the very same manner which we are attempting to do through this debate.

By example, if we are not permitted to have a full and open debate and to press the government on this type of legislation, it demonstrates the dangers, should this bill pass, and the inability for members of parliament to invoke this process of questioning and criticism. That is the danger. This debate in and of itself demonstrates what is wrong with having the type of legislation that allows the government to hide, to cover up, to keep secret its justifications for making designations that are tantamount to an emergency or a military zone. People have to understand that this is what will take place, if the legislation were to pass.

Like previous speakers to the legislation, I am encouraged by the fact that members have brought forward thoughtful criticisms, pressed the government on issues that will be affected, issues that pertain to immigration, the Aeronautics Act, the criminal code and the effect that will have, the transportation and security bill and the passing of information between government agencies. All that has caused many, including independent parties who answer to parliament, to question the government's motive, intent and public trust, which is an important element in all of this.

I hope members will continue to question that not only in the House but before the committee, which is the true test as to whether this open, transparent and honourable legislation.

[Public Safety Act, 2002, May 30th, 2002]

Do you trust them?