37th PARLIAMENT,
1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 096
CONTENTS
Wednesday, October 17, 2001
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
|
|
Poverty |
|
|
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford,
Lib.) |
|
|
Housing |
|
|
Mr. Joe Peschisolido (Richmond, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Citizenship Week |
|
|
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mike Harris |
|
|
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West,
Lib.) |
|
|
Laval Chamber of Commerce and
Industry |
|
|
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West,
Lib.) |
|
|
Housing |
|
|
Mr. John Reynolds (West
Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Canadian Forces |
|
|
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay
(Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.) |
|
|
Médecins du Monde |
|
|
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec,
BQ) |
|
|
LandMines |
|
|
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce,
Lib.) |
|
|
Housing |
|
|
Mr. James Moore (Port
Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Multiculturalism |
|
|
Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre,
Lib.) |
|
|
Rehavam Ze'evi |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas,
NDP) |
|
|
Poverty |
|
|
Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides,
BQ) |
|
|
Terrorism |
|
|
Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal,
Lib.) |
|
|
Operation Apollo |
|
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore,
PC/DR) |
|
|
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
|
|
Terrorism |
|
|
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe
(Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe
(Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval,
BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval,
BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
The Economy |
|
|
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona,
NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona,
NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.) |
|
|
Foreign Affairs |
|
|
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay
(Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC/DR) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Terrorism |
|
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Pierrette Venne
(Saint-Bruno--Saint-Hubert, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Pierrette Venne
(Saint-Bruno--Saint-Hubert, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean,
BQ) |
|
|
Mr. John O'Reilly (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean,
BQ) |
|
|
Mr. John O'Reilly (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Citizenship and
Immigration |
|
|
Mr. Paul Forseth (New
Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Forseth (New
Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
International
Co-operation |
|
|
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon,
Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Maria Minna (Minister for
International Cooperation, Lib.) |
|
|
Poverty |
|
|
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East,
NDP) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Agriculture |
|
|
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser,
NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.) |
|
|
Bioterrorism |
|
|
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.) |
|
|
Immigration |
|
|
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Money Laundering |
|
|
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur
(Berthier--Montcalm, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur
(Berthier--Montcalm, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.) |
|
|
Bioterrorism |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of
National Revenue, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of
National Revenue, Lib.) |
|
|
Labour |
|
|
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby--Ajax,
Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw (Minister of
Labour, Lib.) |
|
|
Transportation |
|
|
Mr. Jim Gouk
(Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of
Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jim Gouk
(Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of
Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
Poverty |
|
|
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay
(Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Maria Minna (Minister for
International Cooperation, Lib.) |
|
|
Francophone Summit |
|
|
Mr. Dan McTeague
(Pickering--Ajax--Uxbridge, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Ronald Duhamel (Minister of
Veterans Affairs and Secretary of State (Western Economic
Diversification)(Francophonie), Lib.) |
|
|
Presence in Gallery |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Points of Order |
|
|
Bill C-287 |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North
Centre, NDP) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
|
|
Government Response to
Petitions |
|
|
Mr. Joe Jordan (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Claim Settlements (Alberta and Saskatchewan)
Implementation Act |
|
|
Hon. Robert Nault (Minister of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.) |
|
|
(Motions deemed adopted,
bill read the first time and printed)
|
|
|
Operation Apollo |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe
(Laurier--Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona,
NDP) |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Committees of the
House |
|
|
Procedure and House
Affairs |
|
|
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough,
Lib.) |
|
|
(Motion agreed
to)
|
|
|
Petitions |
|
|
Genetically Modified Foods
|
|
|
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis,
Lib.) |
|
|
Via Rail |
|
|
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough,
Lib.) |
|
|
Questions on the Order
Paper |
|
|
Mr. Joe Jordan (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Motions for Papers |
|
|
Mr. Joe Jordan (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos) |
|
|
Points of Order |
|
|
Firearms Act |
|
|
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos) |
|
|
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
|
|
Anti-terrorism Act |
|
|
[------] |
|
|
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
|
|
Committees of the
House |
|
|
Transport and Government
Operations |
|
|
Mr. Joe Jordan (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos) |
|
|
(Motion agreed
to)
|
|
|
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
|
|
Anti-Terrorism Act |
|
|
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête
(Kamouraska--Rivière-du-Loup--Témiscouata--Les Basques, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos) |
|
|
Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South
Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos) |
|
|
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt,
PC/DR) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos) |
|
|
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson
and Highland Valleys, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Stephen Owen (Vancouver Quadra,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia--Matane,
BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Jim Karygiannis
(Scarborough—Agincourt, Lib.) |
|
|
PRIVATE MEMBER'S BUSINESS
|
|
|
Food and Drugs Act |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair) |
|
|
(Division 151) |
|
|
Motion
negatived
|
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair) |
|
|
Criminal Code |
|
|
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC/DR)
|
|
|
Hon. Stephen Owen (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal,
PC/DR) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair) |
|
|
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
|
|
[------] |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair) |
|
|
[------] |
|
|
Airline
Industry |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête
(Kamouraska--Rivière-du-Loup--Témiscouata--Les Basques, BQ) |
|
|
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
|
Ms. Raymonde Folco |
|
|
Discrimination |
|
|
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East,
NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Stephen Owen (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada,
Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
|
Mr. Stephen Owen |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair) |
CANADA
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Wednesday, October 17, 2001
Speaker: The Honourable Peter
Milliken
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
[Article 31 du Règlement]
* * *
(1400)
[Translation]
The Speaker:
As is our practice on Wednesday we will now sing O
Canada, led by the hon. member for Yukon.
[Editor's Note: Members sang the national
anthem]
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[S. O. 31]
* * *
(1405)
[Translation]
Poverty
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, today is the International Day for the
Eradication of Poverty. Its purpose is to raise public and governmental
awareness of the importance of eradicating poverty and destitution, not only in
Canada but also in all countries, the developing countries in particular.
The Government of Canada is strongly committed to
contributing to that objective. We support development activities on the world
scene. One hundred of the poorest countries benefit from Canadian aid via
cooperation for development projects. We also support a number of international
strategies.
I encourage our government to continue its actions in
this area. In conjunction with our partners, we will be able to lessen poverty
in Canada and throughout the entire world.
* * *
[English]
Housing
Mr. Joe Peschisolido (Richmond, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, October 9, I held a town hall
meeting in my riding of Richmond. The topic was the leaky condo crisis and more
than 120 people attended. I have been listening, as have my colleagues from the
lower mainland, but unfortunately the government has not.
This week a delegation of leaky condo owners has come
to Ottawa to make the government listen to their plight and to get some relief
in the face of this disaster.
I am sure the government would agree that all Canadians
should be treated equally and would ensure that the B.C. leaky condo owners
receive the same type of relief as those homeowners in Quebec who were rightly
helped for their problems related to pyrite.
I hope the government moves quickly to help the
thousands of British Columbians who are facing bankruptcy and in some cases
grave illness.
* * *
[Translation]
Citizenship Week
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau,
Lib.):
Canada's Citizenship Week runs until October 21. It
provides an occasion to recognize the value of citizenship and immigration and
to focus on the privileges, rights, responsibilities and obligations of
citizenship.
Canada is known for its diversity. We respect
differences in culture, race and religion. Those differences all make a dynamic
contribution to enriching our country. Immigration is one of Canada's essential
assets.
It is my most sincere wish that Canadians will continue
to be as open-minded as they have in the past, so that their fellow citizens
from all backgrounds will continue to feel at home in Canada.
* * *
[English]
Mike Harris
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, public life is an honour bestowed on a
very small percentage of our population. It can be very rewarding and yet very
challenging. I would never suggest, even if I disagree with their politics,
that I do not respect their intentions as they relate to their constituents,
their province or their country.
It is in this light that I congratulate Premier Mike
Harris for having the courage to make a very personal decision and retire. He
wants to spend more time with his family.
I served with Mike at Queen's Park for eight years. He
was my opponent, never my enemy. Our mutual enemies were complacency and anyone
who wanted to harm our province.
The political ideology that developed as the common
sense revolution was certainly not something that I shared in any way. However
the ability to lead, the ability to fight for what one believes in and execute
the ideology faithfully, is something that I respect. I extend congratulations
to Mike. May he enjoy his retirement.
* * *
[Translation]
Laval Chamber of Commerce and
Industry
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, recently, the Laval chamber of commerce
and industry presented a very positive report of its activities in 2000-01 and
introduced its new president, Danielle Savard.
Ms. Savard is the second woman to be chosen as
president of the Laval chamber of commerce and industry, which has been in
existence for 35 years. She is committed to developing new alliances and
strategies with local economic sectors in an effort to build on the huge
progress made in recent years.
I therefore wish long life to the Laval chamber of
commerce and industry and welcome to its new president. I have no doubt
Danielle Savard will ensure the success of the undertakings of the Laval
chamber of commerce and industry.
* * *
[English]
Housing
Mr. John Reynolds (West
Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, in our precincts today are members of the
coalition of leaky condo owners from British Columbia. Among them is a former
colleague, Simma Holt, and the mayor of Port Moody, Joe Trasolini.
On May 9 the House debated Motion No. 293, an
initiative of the Canadian Alliance member for Port Moody--Coquitlam--Port
Coquitlam which purported to remove GST from repairs to leaky condos.
Regrettably the Liberal dominated committee deemed the motion non-votable and
absolved itself of any responsibility to the aggrieved B.C. condo
owners.
Not satisfied with this abandonment, during the May 9
debate of the motion five Liberal MPs from British Columbia and the minister of
public works did not have the interest, let alone the courtesy, to be here and
be part of the debate. Their contempt for these neglected and betrayed leaky
condo owners is representative of the Liberal government's approach to B.C.
issues.
While the minister of public works could find $17.5
million to relieve the Montreal homeowners, he cannot find similar money to aid
those in British Columbia. The Prime Minister, if he wants to do right, should
listen to the former Liberal member from British Columbia, Simma Holt, and help
these people with their dire needs.
* * *
(1410)
[Translation]
Canadian Forces
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay
(Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Veterans Affairs has
unveiled the poster marking this year's veterans' week and remembrance day. It
pays tribute to all members of the forces and reminds Canadians of the
sacrifices that have been made for them.
The photograph on the poster was taken in Eritrea, in
northeast Africa, where 450 members of the Canadian armed forces were sent on a
peacekeeping mission. In the background we see an area devastated by war, and,
in the foreground, a Canadian peacekeeper holding the hand of a young
child.
This striking image shows Canada's commitment to
creating a better world. It also speaks of the courage of all those who give
effect to our country's ideals.
I am proud to note that the soldier in the photograph
is one of my constituents. Corporal Roy and his wife were born and grew up near
Edmundston, New Brunswick. Corporal Roy is currently based in his home province
as a member of the Royal Canadian Regiment, in Gagetown. He represents all the
men and women of our armed forces who serve and protect Canada every
day.
On behalf of all the members of the House of Commons, I
thank Corporal and Mrs. Roy and their family for serving Canada.
* * *
Médecins du Monde
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, this evening the show called Chansons
d'espoir will be presented at Montreal's Spectrum. This is a benefit
concert organized by Paul Piché with the participation of some 15 Quebec
artists, including Gilles Vigneault, Louise Forestier, Pierre Flynn, Daniel
Bélanger, Marie-Claire and Richard Séguin, Jim Corcoran, Luc De Larochellière,
Luc Picard and Monique Fauteux. Their goal is to collect funds for the group
Médecins du Monde, which sent a team to Iran to look after Afghan refugees.
Through their sensitiveness, our artists are reminding
us of our fundamental values. In these troubled times, they are reminding us
that before being Quebecers, Canadians, Americans or Afghans, before being
Catholics, Muslims, Jews or Protestants, we are all human beings who must show
solidarity with one another.
A few weeks ago, the show Québec-New York,
during which Quebec singers and artists performed in front of 12,000 spectators
and hundreds of thousands of television viewers, gave us an opportunity to
express our solidarity to the victims of the New York attacks.
We thank our artists who, this evening again, will show
the way to a better world.
* * *
[English]
LandMines
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on October 4, Frank O’Dea from the
Canadian Land Mine Foundation addressed a group of my constituents. Although he
only spoke briefly his message was substantial.
Landmines are among the cruellest of all weapons
because they do not recognize the difference between a soldier and a child.
They kill and maim long after the warring soldiers have left the battlegrounds.
They are not only a weapon of terror but also an impediment to social recovery.
At this moment there are between 50 million and 100 million landmines in 70
countries lying in wait to kill innocent people.
Since the tragic events of September 11 the world has
asked how it can contribute to fighting terrorism. In response I would suggest:
host a dinner. Terrorists need tools like landmines to create their havoc. By
having a dinner in their homes on November 30 Canadians can directly contribute
to the worldwide de-mining operation.
This simple act represents an opportunity for Canadians
to do something that will enhance the quality of life for many innocent people
all over the world. I encourage them to make a difference by calling
1-866-611-7669.
* * *
Housing
Mr. James Moore (Port
Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, on June 5 the public works minister
announced that the federal government was giving $3,500 in aid per homeowner to
Montreal area homes damaged by pyrite. While cutting cheques to Quebec
homeowners the government has done next to nothing for B.C.'s leaky condo
owners.
On June 16 I asked the minister three specific
questions in a letter in an effort to better understand this double standard.
It has been 125 days, over four months, and he has yet to respond.
The province of British Columbia through the Barrett
commission legitimized its demands for compensation to leaky condo owners yet
has received no recognition from the federal government.
At the same time the province of Quebec, without an
independent commission, asked for millions of dollars in compensation and the
government gave it. This clear double standard is intolerable, a slap in the
face and an insult to thousands of my constituents and thousands of British
Columbians.
British Columbians deserve better representation from
the government and they deserve it now, not later.
* * *
(1415)
Multiculturalism
Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, October 8 marked the 30th anniversary of
the introduction of Canada's multiculturalism policy. After 30 years of
successes and challenges it is clear that the policy remains particularly
necessary and timely at this difficult moment when harmony among people is
threatened and our hope for a better world is being sorely tested.
Canada's multiculturalism policy emerged from a vision
of a country rich in cultural diversity ever since its history began and was
resolutely open to the world. It is a policy promoting recognition of and
mutual respect for the many cultural communities that make up Canadian society.
It is a policy that allows us to feel free and proud that we are Canadians
without having to discard our culture of origin which enriches our entire
society.
On this 30th anniversary of the introduction of
Canada's multiculturalism policy it is time to renew our commitment to the
principles and values that led to its adoption and supported the task of
building a country, a land rich in cultural diversity and a model for the world
to adopt.
* * *
Rehavam Ze'evi
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my New Democrat colleagues I
rise to strongly condemn the murder of Israeli tourism minister Rehavam Ze'evi.
This tragic death will only fuel the destructive violence which has already led
to far too many deaths of innocent Palestinians and Israelis.
We join in calling for an end to all violence, for the
full respect of all UN resolutions affecting the Middle East and for an
international United Nations presence in the occupied territories. Both the
Palestinians and the Israelis must be entitled to live in viable, independent
states in mutual security and in peace.
We extend our condolences to the family of Minister
Ze'evi and to the people of Israel at this painful time.
* * *
[Translation]
Poverty
Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, on this International Day for the
Eradication of Poverty, I wish to remind this House that poverty is one of the
main obstacles to our democratic ideal and that, as legislators, we have a duty
to eliminate the suffering that it generates.
In a country as rich as Canada, it is unacceptable to
let one child out of five go to school on an empty stomach. At the world level,
the numbers are appalling: 2.8 billion people, or close to half of the world's
population, are living in abject poverty with an income of less than $2 per
day.
To fight poverty is to promote human dignity in a
spirit of elementary justice and kindness.
To fight poverty is to say no to oppression and to
exclusion. More importantly, it is to say yes to freedom and peace.
Whenever we take action to eliminate poverty, we
strengthen the very foundation of democracy. We have neither the right nor the
means to deprive ourselves of this collective enrichment.
* * *
[English]
Terrorism
Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the government's anti-terrorism law is not
only intended to mobilize the domestic legal arsenal against international
terrorism but to help build and strengthen the international mechanisms to
confront the new supernational terrorism.
Accordingly the Canadian government is hosting this
week an international conference on money laundering involving participants
from 43 countries to address and redress an evil that threatens the security
and lives of people.
In particular, terrorists and transnational criminal
syndicates have enormous resources at their disposal with the capacity to
infiltrate, undermine and circumvent legitimate socioeconomic infrastructures
and transactions.
By targeting money laundering, the soft underbelly of
terrorist and criminal organizations, the conference aims to stem the illicit
flow of funds that sustain these organizations, which exemplifies our
international leadership role in protecting human security in mobilizing the
legal arsenal to put people, their safety and their lives first.
* * *
Operation Apollo
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, today in Halifax family and friends of
Canada's military gathered with the Governor General and members of parliament
as Canadians bid farewell to the 1,000 men and women of Canada's armed forces
embarking on Operation Apollo.
The frigate Charlottetown, the supply ship
Preserver and the destroyer Iroquois will leave Halifax as the
main body of the Canadian naval task group. These ships will meet up with the
HMCS Halifax, which is already serving in the Persian Gulf
area.
It is never easy to commit troops to war and we
sincerely wish them Godspeed and safe return. They perform an important role in
obtaining peace and security in the world.
These ships will join an aircraft carrier battle group
and actively participate in protecting the force. These men and women have been
well trained and are prepared to do duty. They will be missed by their
families, but they can rest assured they will never be far from the thoughts of
all Canadians from coast to coast.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[Oral Questions]
* * *
(1420)
[English]
Terrorism
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday Sergeant Philippe Lapierre of
the RCMP's counterterrorism section said at a conference on money laundering in
Montreal that terrorists in Canada follow a pattern. First they apply for
refugee status. Then they apply for welfare and health cards. Next they get
involved in theft and financial crime. Finally they try to launder the money
through legal businesses.
What measures has the government taken to prevent false
refugee claimants from committing their crimes in Canada?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the first thing it is important for us to
deal with is fact and not myth, whether it is a member opposite or an officer
of the RCMP.
The facts are these. For the overwhelming majority of
people who come to Canada and make a refugee claim, we know who they are and we
know where they are. They are working. They are paying taxes. They are
undergoing intensive security screening.
There are those who would like to see them detained or
forced underground. In this country we honour our humanitarian traditions as
well as the rule of law.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, if the minister does not believe the RCMP,
who does she believe? Its own counterterrorism force says that false refugee
claimants committing fraud and theft in Canada is the modus operandi for
terrorist cells in Canada. Her actions to date have done nothing to prevent
this.
How can the government claim it is doing enough to stop
terrorism when it still will not deal with this problem at its
roots?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, again let me say that it is extremely
important for the member to know the facts. The fact of the matter is that when
someone arrives in Canada and makes a refugee claim, the first thing that we do
is take his or her fingerprints. The next thing is a photograph. We then have
an interview and right now those interviews are taking three to four hours.
Wherever we have evidence to suspect that someone is a security risk he or she
is detained.
The overwhelming majority of people who come to Canada
asking for protection are working and paying taxes. We know who they are and
where they are.
[Translation]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police has
warned this government that terrorist cells in Canada are hiding behind false
refugee claims and committing theft and fraud in order to finance their
activities.
Why does the anti-terrorism bill not provide police
with the tools they require in order to ensure that terrorists do not abuse our
country's generosity?
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am sure my hon. colleague is not
indicating that anybody can enter this country and break the law if he or she
so wishes.
My hon. colleague is well aware that if people break
the law we have police forces that arrest them. We have given the funds, the
manpower and the technology to make sure this country remains safe.
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are concerned that the Liberal
government has allowed Canada to become a safe haven for terrorists. American
anti-terrorist legislation specifically deals with issues relating to the
deportation of dangerous terrorists.
How does the justice minister intend to deal with this
serious problem when she has failed to include the necessary provisions in the
legislation she has tabled?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the fact is that in Bill C-11 we have
actually eliminated the right to an appeal of the immigration appeal division
for those who pose a security threat to Canada.
Do members know what happened on June 4? That member
and members of the opposition voted to restore the appeal rights to make it
more difficult for us to pursue those who pose a security threat to Canada.
That is the fact.
(1425)
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, this is a minister who has done nothing
for years. This is a minister who continues to stand and try to get Canadians
to believe that she has done something, and she has done nothing. She has
failed to put legal principles in place.
How can this minister offer Canadians any assurance
that terrorists will be deported from Canada quickly and efficiently and not
according to the standards that she refuses to apply?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-11, which is before the Senate at
this time, does exactly what the member opposite is saying today that he would
like to see happen: streamline our procedures and make it more easy and more
efficient for us to be able to remove those by denying access to the IRB and by
removing appeal rights.
They voted against the bill. Further, they tried to
reinstate appeal rights for security tests to Canada. They cannot have it both
ways.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe
(Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister stated yesterday, and I
quote “If any piece of extraordinary legislation should no longer be necessary,
there should be a requirement for it to be withdrawn”.
The Prime Minister also specified, and rightly so, that
some elements of the anti-terrorism bill should be maintained. I am referring
to Canada's adherence to the latest conventions on terrorism, for
example.
Given the Prime Minister's openness, will the Minister
of Justice acknowledge that there should be a time limit on certain clauses of
the anti-terrorism bill?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, both the Prime Minister and I have
indicated that we look forward to a discussion at committee on whether the
review mechanism in the legislation is appropriate. We believe it is. Obviously
we believe it is the appropriate mechanism in relation to the entire
legislative package before the House.
However, I am the first to concede that reasonable
people of good faith might disagree on this and might be able to offer the
government their best advice as to other approaches.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe
(Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, speaking of different approaches, I would
like to refer once again to what the Prime Minister said regarding the need to
protect freedom.
He said, and I quote “that even in the wake of
September 11 we can live our lives on our terms, according to our
values”.
In order to show that we value freedom, will the
minister acknowledge that sunset clauses are necessary, particularly in the
case of preventive arrest, and will she clearly indicate our intentions in this
bill by stating that there is a time limit on certain clauses?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we take very seriously our responsibility
to ensure we do not put forward in the House legislation that violates any of
our important values or principles, including those found in the charter of
rights and freedoms. That is why we believe our anti-terrorism legislation is
fully compliant with the charter of rights and freedoms.
However, as I have said, I have no doubt there will be
discussion at committee in terms of possible review mechanisms. I look forward
to that discussion.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, our fears about the danger of
agreeing to overly vague and sweeping definitions in Bill C-36 were confirmed.
One of the minister's cabinet colleagues compared the demonstrators at the
Quebec City summit to terrorists.
With an example like that, does the minister not
realize that all manner of abuses are possible and that she should tighten up
the definitions in her bill?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday, the definition
of terrorist activity in Bill C-36 has been very carefully crafted to ensure
that we do not apply these provisions to lawful protest activity.
I would ask the hon. member to keep in mind that the
activity we are focusing on, the centre of this legislation, the objective of
this legislation, is to attack activity, the motivation of which and the
purpose of which is terror.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the minister can keep telling us that
these definitions are just fine, but when a member of the Liberal caucus
interprets them as meaning that demonstrators are terrorists, what is going to
happen when thousands of police officers, secret agents and security personnel
interpret the definitions in the proposed legislation, if the Liberals
themselves cannot sort them out?
Should she not be more prudent and define things more
clearly?
(1430)
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I have said before, lawful protest
activity is fully protected in this legislation. I ask the hon. member again to
focus on what we are truly getting at here, which is those activities, the goal
or the intention of which is to create terror.
* * *
The Economy
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of
Finance. It has to do with what we all know to be the case, that is the extra
moneys that have to be spent combating terrorism.
A lot of us on this side, and perhaps on the other
side, are concerned that other commitments the government has made with respect
to aboriginal people, fighting poverty, the environment, et cetera, not go by
the wayside.
Could the Minister of Finance tell us when he will
bring in a budget to display to us that they will keep these commitments and
how they will keep these commitments?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I do not need to bring in a budget to tell
the hon. member and the House that the government remains loyal to its
commitments and to its obligations.
There is no doubt the events of September 11 have
certainly changed some of the priorities. National security is a number one
priority. We will provide the funding that is required to protect Canadians.
As the hon. member knows full well, I will be bringing
down either a budget or a fiscal statement. I am very open to bringing down a
budget, but I want to make sure I have all the facts at hand before doing
so.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, what we are concerned about and I hope the
minister would be concerned about is that the financial burden of fighting
terrorism be distributed fairly.
In his economic or fiscal statement, or budget we hope,
will the minister give consideration to eliminating some of the tax cuts that
he brought in for the very comfortable and wealthy in the country, as one of
the ways we could pay for this instead of cutting social spending?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member should go back and
take a look at what those tax cuts did. Overwhelmingly, those tax cuts were for
medium income and low income Canadians. For example, the national child benefit
was substantially increased. That was for medium and low income families with
children.
The whole question of indexation, which protects
Canadians against taxation by stealth and which provides low income Canadians
with a guarantee that they will live comfortably, we are not going to cancel
that.
* * *
Foreign Affairs
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, on October 4 the solicitor general told
the House that CSIS has all the tools it needs to gather intelligence abroad,
yet the current head of CSIS admits that he can collect intelligence abroad
only when he can afford to do so. Now the foreign affairs minister has flat out
contradicted the solicitor general by saying that to protect Canadians we need
to establish a permanent, foreign intelligence agency.
Will the solicitor general take the advice of the
foreign affairs minister and get the mandate and the money to create a
permanent foreign intelligence gathering agency?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, once again the hon. member has it wrong. I
have said that one of the issues that we need to consider in our committee that
is doing extensive work on a whole range of issues is the degree to which
Canada has capacity in foreign intelligence gathering and whether that needs to
be increased. Many are arguing that it should be, but the committee certainly
has not taken a view on that.
In any event, there are foreign intelligence gathering
capacities in existing agencies. They are not equivalent to a full scale
foreign intelligence gathering service however.
Mr. Peter MacKay
(Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, Canada is the only G-7 nation that does
not have a foreign intelligence agency and since 1993 CSIS has been downsized
significantly. If the solicitor general does not know that he should. We need a
greater international understanding of external threats through an increased
intelligence gathering capacity.
Could the solicitor general tell the House how many
foreign officers trained to collect intelligence are working overseas and how
many have cultural awareness, geographic and language skills to integrate into
foreign communities?
(1435)
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we will certainly take the preamble of the
member's question as a recommendation and I can assure him that the government
will take it into account.
However, I do not think we need to look very far to
realize that a full scale, highly funded foreign intelligence agency is not the
only solution to the problems that exist with respect to terrorism. If so,
perhaps the CIA would have prevented the attacks on September 11.
* * *
Terrorism
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, Nabil Al-Marabh was released on bail in
Canada in July. He has since been arrested in the United States in connection
with the September 11 attacks. A few weeks ago the RCMP raided a print shop and
found evidence linked to Marabh.
Will the minister confirm whether false documents
created in Canada were used by the September 11 hijackers?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. colleague is aware, and I
have mentioned it many times in the House, that CSIS and the RCMP are working
around the clock with the FBI to make sure that these terrorists are brought to
justice.
I am sure my hon. colleague is fully aware that I
cannot disclose information about an investigation. It would be totally
inappropriate.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, we brought information to the House
repeatedly to show Canadians that the country is being used as a safe haven for
terrorists. In the United States John Ashcroft gives regular briefings about
the investigation going on in the United States. Prime Minister Tony Blair
takes his evidence and puts it on the website.
Why will this minister not give simple, factual answers
about the state of investigations here in Canada. Is he aware?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague is probably aware, I
did meet with the attorney general of the United States, John Ashcroft. We had
a news conference that was covered worldwide. He was asked questions about
investigations. Mr. Ashcroft explained quite clearly to the public that he
could not disclose information about investigations because all it would do
would be destroy the investigation.
[Translation]
Ms. Pierrette Venne
(Saint-Bruno--Saint-Hubert, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice says that the
provision in the anti-terrorism act giving her discretionary power to withhold
information from the public is necessary in the interests of national
security.
How can the minister justify this provision, when the
current Access to Information Act already allows her to withhold any record
which could threaten national security?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, what we are doing is supplementing
existing provisions in access to information. As I have indicated to the hon.
member before, it is very important, not only for us but for our allies, to
ensure that certain information is not disclosed in a public forum, judicial or
otherwise.
In our new legislation we propose that I be able to
issue a certificate to ensure that in certain limited circumstances certain
kinds of information will not be made available to the public. I think that is
important to ensure our national security.
[Translation]
Ms. Pierrette Venne
(Saint-Bruno--Saint-Hubert, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, subsection 15(1) of the Access to
Information Act provides, and I quote:
The head of a government institution
may refuse to disclose any record requested under this Act that contains
information the disclosure of which could ... be injurious to... the defence of
Canada or any state allied ... with Canada or the detection, prevention or
suppression of subversive or hostile activities. |
How can the minister justify this arbitrary power,
unless it is to sidestep the information commissioner and thus open the door
wide to government censorship?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there are certain limited circumstances in
which highly confidential information should not be disclosed in a judicial or
other proceeding. This information, in many cases, is provided to us by our
allies. In fact, they will not provide us with information that may help us in
judicial or other investigations unless we can provide them with a guarantee of
confidentiality. That is what the provision in the anti-terrorism bill speaks
to. I would hope that the hon. member would understand why this is so important
in our global--
(1440)
The Speaker:
The hon. member for Portage--Lisgar.
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, in 1995, Canadian Ahmed Sa'id Al-Kadr was
arrested in Pakistan for financing a terrorist bombing and the Prime Minister
intervened on his behalf.
Foreign affairs officials and CIDA both knew in the
1980s that Al-Kadr was running Saudi money to terrorists in Afghanistan.
The Prime Minister says that he did not know of Mr.
Al-Kadr's terrorist record. The Prime Minister was the last to know that the
man he went to bat for was a terrorist.
What good is intelligence if it is not shared with the
Prime Minister?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, what our Prime Minster asked is what he
would ask in any case, that due course be taken. That is how the Prime Minister
acts.
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, that is soft on terrorism.
Our allies have frozen the assets of Al-Kadr's former
front organization, Human Concern International, and the government still will
not act.
The government knew the Tamil Tigers were a front for
terrorists before the finance minister dined with them.
The government knew that Ahmed Ressam was a terrorist
before he tried to bomb an airport.
The government knew Al-Kadr was a terrorist before the
Prime Minister went to bat for him.
What good is expanding intelligence services in this
country when the government will not act on the intelligence it already
has?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the member seems to have a lot of
interesting information but so far Human Concern International is an agency
that does not appear on any of the following lists, which are really all the
lists that anyone is considering: the 39 individuals and groups that were
audited by the U.S. on October 12; the schedule of the recent executive order
dated September 24; the state department's list of foreign terrorist
organizations; the department of treasury's list of those specially designated
persons; and the FBI's most wanted list.
What list are they on?
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in response to a question as to
whether national security would be better served by giving a judge the
responsibility to decide whether or not electronic surveillance is required,
the Minister of National Defence said, and I quote, “We do have substantial
safeguards and regulations for how this is done”.
Can the minister tell us what legislation enables the
centre to carry out electronic surveillance at the present time?
[English]
Mr. John O'Reilly (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the new authority to intercept
communication is for targeted foreign entities and to protect electronic
information and information and infrastructure that are of importance to the
Government of Canada. It is not to spy on Canadians. Its mandate is enunciated
and limited. It collects activities that are prescribed. It ensures the privacy
of Canadians. It is targeted to foreign entities only.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, that was a pretty complicated
statement.
Can the government confirm that, at this time, the
centre's activities, particularly its interception of telecommunications, are
not governed by any act of parliament?
Let them confess that parliament has no control over
the centre at this time. Let the minister admit that.
[English]
Mr. John O'Reilly (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the member that CSE
operates within the law of Canada. It includes abiding by the Criminal Code of
Canada, the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Privacy Act and the Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms.
The commissioner was appointed in 1996. He is the hon.
Claude Bisson, former chief justice of the Quebec Court of Appeal. He was
reappointed by the Prime Minister. His mandate is to review the activities and
to ensure that they comply with all Canadian law.
* * *
Citizenship and
Immigration
Mr. Paul Forseth (New
Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, if we are talking about lists, the foreign
affairs minister should check the U.K. and the FBI lists.
The citizenship and immigration minister's data reveals
that 73 people claim refugee status every day of the year, 26,708 people last
year. Many are undocumented arrivals of questionable identity and
origin.
How is the system any safer today by continuing to
allow the release of these surprise arrivals to just roam in our
communities?
(1445)
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the premise of the member's question is
incorrect. Anyone who shows up and makes a refugee claim in Canada is
fingerprinted and photographed immediately, and an interview is conducted. If
there is any concern regarding security, identity or that they might not show
up for their hearing, that is grounds for detention.
Whenever we have that kind of evidence we do detain. If
we know who the person is and we are not concerned that he or she poses a
security risk, we do not detain.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New
Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, there is a great disconnect from what the
law allows and what is actually happening in practice.
The problem is the minister fails to acknowledge the
increasing pressure on our system. Our system is in fact swamped to its
capacity to properly screen for safety.
When will the minister stop all these undocumented
claimants without proper security clearance from just freely roaming in our
society?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my concern is that the member opposite, by
giving this false impression, is trying to frighten Canadians, give them the
impression that there are people who are not properly identified, that we do
not know who they are and that we have concerns that they are a security risk
to Canada. That is just simply not true.
Everyone who makes a refugee claim at a port of entry
or inland in Canada must satisfy the immigration officer that they do not pose
a threat, that we know their identity and that they will appear for their
hearing or they will be detained.
Since September 11 we have intensified--
The Speaker:
The hon. member for Yukon.
* * *
International
Co-operation
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have spoken in the House about the
importance of helping the poor and the Afghan refugees in the aftermath of
September 11, and my constituents agree.
Canadians know that our security and the long term
security in the region depend on the people of Afghanistan building a secure,
peaceful, truly democratic society that cares for all its citizens.
Could the Minister for International Co-operation say
what Canada is doing to help achieve that international goal?
Hon. Maria Minna (Minister for
International Cooperation, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I have said before in the House, Canada
has been involved in Afghanistan for some time. We have provided $6 million to
assist with the immediate emergency. We also have a special team on the ground
to reinforce our ability to co-ordinate with logistics, because it is very
important to ensure that we get food into Afghanistan prior to the onset of
winter.
This work is very difficult and that is why I am in
contact with Unicef and have just had discussions with the Red Cross and the
UNHCR on this situation.
* * *
Poverty
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago the Minister of Finance
said that the government would be loyal to its social spending commitments
which, I might add, are incredibly modest, but in the next breath he said that
changing priorities will happen because of September 11.
On this international day to eradicate poverty, there
is huge concern that the government will turn a blind eye to the five million
Canadians who live below the poverty line. I would like to ask the finance
minister to make a clear commitment to provide the financial resources for a
national not for profit housing program and for proper resources to deal with
the appalling conditions in which aboriginal people live in this country. Is
that--
The Speaker:
The hon. Minister of Finance.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in 1995 when the government brought down
the deficit busting budget the one piece of funding that was never cut and was
in fact increased was funding for aboriginal Canadians for health care and
aboriginal housing.
The fact is that the government has brought in the most
far reaching piece of new legislation in terms of helping young families with
children. The national child benefit has now arrived at a record level. Our
transfers to the provinces for health care and education are at a record level.
Our transfers in terms of equalization for basic services today are at a record
level. That is what the government--
The Speaker:
The hon. member for Palliser.
* * *
Agriculture
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, in a similar vein the agriculture minister
has said he would wait until this year's crop was harvested before assessing
the damage. The numbers are in and without doubt there is another disaster
looming in rural Canada.
According to the data, realized net farm income will
plummet by more than 70% this year in two critically important agricultural
provinces, Saskatchewan and P.E.I., and by 32% overall across
Canada.
Now that he is armed with the facts will the minister
inform the House how the government intends to respond to this latest
agricultural crisis?
(1450)
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentions being armed with
the facts. I think he should go back and read the facts. The realized net farm
income in Canada this year will be the highest it has been in a number of
years. Program payments through programs such as net income stabilization, crop
insurance and other program payments will be close to $4 billion, the highest
they have been in a number of years. Those are the facts.
* * *
Bioterrorism
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, U.S. postal authorities have taken the
precaution of informing Americans about the threat of bioterrorism and what to
do if they receive suspicious letters or packages.
Will the minister of public works immediately instruct
Canada Post to follow the lead of its American counterparts and issue clear
guidelines for Canadians on how to handle suspicious mail?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as usual Canada Post always informs its
customers to be very diligent in how to deal with mail. We have had some
incidents, but after investigation those incidents were found to be false. We
have taken all the necessary precautions to make sure that more than 50,000
Canada Post employees have been and are protected with different procedures. We
will definitely continue to inform people of the--
The Speaker:
The hon. member for Richmond--Arthabaska.
* * *
[Translation]
Health
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, are we prepared for the worst? Today, the
leader of my coalition wrote the Minister of Health requesting that he report
to the House on his action plan against bioterrorism.
When interviewed last evening, the minister spoke along
those same lines in stating that “Canadians are entitled to expect their
government to have a solid action plan”.
Could the minister tell us if he will accept the
invitation from my leader and finally share his action plan with the
House?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the plan is clear. We at Health Canada are
working at this time in conjunction with my cabinet colleagues, the caucus and
my provincial and territorial counterparts to prepare Canada for any
threat.
We have stockpiled antibiotics and vaccines. We have
enhanced our surveillance systems. We have stepped up our capacity to
communicate with other stakeholders in Canada and elsewhere. We are constantly
working to solve these problems.
* * *
[English]
Immigration
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, on Monday night an individual by the name
of Muhammad Sabir arrived at the Calgary airport. In his possession he had
phony passports and travel documents in different names other than his own.
Investigations revealed that his name was actually Hussein Shafquat, who was
granted refugee status in 1999.
My question is for the minister of immigration. Since
Sabir, or Shafquat, whatever his name is, has landed immigrant status in the
country, will the minister assure this House and the people of the country that
he--
The Speaker:
The hon. Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration.
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, first let me repeat what my colleague the
solicitor general has said and that is that it is extremely important that we
not do or say anything inside or outside of this House that would jeopardize an
investigation or a successful prosecution.
What I can tell the member opposite is that if someone,
anyone, comes to Canada and obtains permanent residence status or in fact
citizenship through fraud or misrepresentation, we have the authority in the
law to take that status away and that is exactly what we do.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, too often this minister has hidden behind
rhetoric as to what she is doing and not doing in this House and in her
portfolio. She has never offered assurances to the people of this country about
security matters and how she is going to handle them in her
department.
Again I will ask the minister specifically, will she
give assurances to the people and the House that Sabir will not be released and
that his status will be revoked?
(1455)
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, that party has consistently tried to
equate refugees with criminals or refugees with terrorists, so I say shame on
them. That is absolutely the wrong thing to be doing at this time or at any
time.
Further, that is the party that voted against Bill
C-11. That is the party that tried to restore appeal rights when we wanted to
streamline the procedure. They know the rules and the law and whenever we have
evidence where we can remove status, we do that.
* * *
[Translation]
Money Laundering
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur
(Berthier--Montcalm, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the world money laundering conference
concludes today in Montreal. At least $30 billion left Canada last year for
three tax havens recognized by the OECD.
Can the Minister of Finance guarantee that not one cent
of this $30 billion was used to finance terrorism?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is fairly clear that the Minister of
Finance, in his capacity as Minister of Finance, certainly does not have this
information. If it does exist, it is a matter for the police.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur
(Berthier--Montcalm, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, does the Minister of Finance realize that
his lack of willingness continues to make it impossible to know whether the
$30 billion invested in these tax havens, which his government encourages, have
been or are being used to finance terrorism?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as far as financing terrorism is
concerned, the Government of Canada, with the Minister of Justice's omnibus
bill and by freezing terrorists assets from the start, as the United Nations
required, led the way and will continue to do so.
When we look at the OECD initiative on tax havens and
the Government of Canada's ability to act in the area, we see very clearly
that, of all the G-7 countries, Canada is the one providing leadership, and we
will continue to do so.
* * *
[English]
Bioterrorism
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, last Sunday it was reported that customs
officers nationwide had stepped up their screening of all mail entering the
country following the anthrax death in Florida. A customs spokeswoman indicated
that customs officers were fully trained and equipped to deal with packages
containing anthrax.
I learned just this morning that the guidelines on how
to screen for anthrax are being issued today, four days later. Why would the
minister's spokeswoman deliberately and dangerously mislead
Canadians?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of
National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we all know that in Canada we have a very
good customs system. Of course people have been trained, first in regard to
seaports, airports and the land border in order to make sure that they keep
Canadians safe as well as keeping the border open for trade.
Regarding the item to which the hon. member just
referred, I can confirm to the House that a number of telephone conversations
took place with the aid of all the departments across Canada in order to make
sure we deal with the situation appropriately.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, that does not clear up anything. The
customs spokeswoman, Colette Gentes-Hawn also stated that “our officers are
aware of what has to be done in these type of situations”.
If our customs officers are getting the instructions
only today on how to handle dangerous substances, including anthrax, what has
Canada Customs been up to until today? Can the minister reassure Canadians that
anthrax has not already arrived in Canada?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of
National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as usual the only thing I can say is that
all the necessary procedures are in place in order to make sure that we keep
our Canadian society safe. People at the land border, airports and seaports
have been trained properly.
I would also like to remind the hon. member that last
week we announced additional money, additional resources, to make sure we
fulfil our duty.
Having said that, I would advise the hon. member and
all members opposite to get involved with the government in order to help us
reform the system and keep helping Canadians in trade as well as on the
security side.
* * *
(1500)
Labour
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby--Ajax,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, today Canada will begin hosting the 12th
inter-American conference of ministers of labour here in Ottawa.
I would like to ask the Minister of Labour to explain
Canada's overall objectives. Could she tell the House what she hopes will be
accomplished over the next two years?
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw (Minister of
Labour, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, at the Quebec summit of the Americas, the
Prime Minister and the ministers of labour developed an action plan. This week
we have 28 countries from the Americas here to do that work. We will be looking
at the ILO declaration. We will be looking at modernizing labour ministries. We
will also be looking at the labour dimension of globalization and free
trade.
[Translation]
It is a pleasure for Canada, and we will be honoured to
chair this conference over the next two years.
* * *
[English]
Transportation
Mr. Jim Gouk
(Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the government has announced it will be
spending $79 million to enhance security at Canada's airports. The majority of
that money, $55.7 million, will be for enhanced electronic security
equipment.
Could the minister tell the House if that is scheduled
for all airports in Canada and, if not, what categories of airports are being
considered?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of
Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, obviously as this machinery comes on line
in the coming weeks and months it will be applied to the most sensitive parts
of the country and the airports with the highest passenger inflows, the major
international airports across the country, and then gradually will cover as
many airports as is practical.
Mr. Jim Gouk
(Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, most of us have heard the old adage that a
chain is only as strong as its weakest link but obviously the minister has not.
State of the art equipment at major airports does absolutely nothing to enhance
safety if terrorists board aircraft at airports with no radar or x-ray security
whatsoever, then fly into a major airport and disembark on the secure
side.
Why does the minister think that enhanced equipment
will make flights safer if some passengers can avoid it and fly in from small,
unequipped airports?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of
Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that when that
is the case those people in transit are required to go through security at the
larger airports.
* * *
[Translation]
Poverty
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay
(Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, on this International Day for the
Eradication of Poverty, the federal government's record remains
poor.
On September 26, the Office of the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees made an urgent appeal to raise the $390 million
required to provide aid to the two million Afghani refugees.
Canada sent only $1.2 million, the equivalent of the
budget for two days.
How can the government claim to be serious and
responsible, when its reaction to this current crisis and the money allocated
to it are completely derisory? And does it plan to announce additional
humanitarian assistance soon?
[English]
Hon. Maria Minna (Minister for
International Cooperation, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is important to keep in mind that the
announcement made by the UN was a worst case scenario which meant that the
borders were open and there were millions more people getting out and going
into the refugee area.
At the moment, for the majority, there has been no
great movement from within leaving Afghanistan. The issue is to try to get food
inside Afghanistan, and we are working on the logistics.
I have restrengthened the people on the ground within
my organization and we are working with others. That will indicate the kind of
decision we will have to make in the next couple of days.
* * *
[Translation]
Francophone Summit
Mr. Dan McTeague
(Pickering--Ajax--Uxbridge, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of
Veterans Affairs and Secretary of State for the Francophonie.
What is the government's reaction to the postponement
of the Francophone Summit in Beirut, whose theme “Cultural Dialogue” was
particularly appropriate and, I would say, contextual, in these turbulent
times?
Hon. Ronald Duhamel (Minister of
Veterans Affairs and Secretary of State (Western Economic
Diversification)(Francophonie), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, that summit was a very important one in
the current context. The Prime Minister and myself were very disappointed,
because we were all set to go to Beirut.
Unfortunately, we did not go. A decision was made,
which we accept; we understand the reasons, but we will nevertheless continue
to pursue the Canadian government's objectives, such as that of combatting
terrorism.
I might add that the summit was merely delayed. Another
Francophone Summit will be held in the fall of 2002, in the same country where
it was to be held this year.
* * *
(1505)
[English]
Presence in Gallery
The Speaker:
I draw the attention of all hon. members to the
presence in the gallery of Ministers of Labour of the Organization of American
States.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
Points of Order
Bill C-287
[Points of Order]
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North
Centre, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, my point of order arises out of events
that took place during the last hour of debate last night on private members'
business, Bill C-287, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (genetically
modified food), which stands in the name of the member for
Davenport.
As the House will be voting on this bill this evening,
I felt it was urgent to bring this matter to your attention.
I would like you as Speaker to examine the record
pertaining to the debate on Bill C-287 last night, and attempt to find some
remedy to avoid this problem in the future.
I refer here to page 919 of Marleau and Montpetit,
which states:
Although there is no practice of a
fixed pattern for the recognition of Members wishing to speak during Private
Members' Business, the Chair seeks to ensure that there is a smooth flow of
debate, providing opportunities for all points of view to be
expressed. |
The matter of speaking order and rotation during
private members' business has been raised many times in the House. The
procedure book cites the occasions of March 16, 1992, March 18, 1992, November
30, 1992 and October 18, 1995 as examples.
Most of the time the debate flows smoothly. Time is
shared on both sides of the House and among members from all parties. Indeed,
many times the Chair upon seeing a lot of interest in debate on the subject
matter of private members' business will consult the House as to division of
the remaining time, so that all those who are in the Chamber and who wish to
participate may.
I was very frustrated by the flow of debate last night
and raised this with the Acting Speaker at the time, who stated:
At some point in time the Chair had
to make a decision to balance those who were for and who were against the bill.
I wanted to ensure a better understanding for the public and for our colleagues
in the House to help members make up their minds before voting tomorrow
afternoon. That was the reasoning behind it. There was no offence intended. I
was trying to accommodate as many members as possible. |
I notified the Table early in the day yesterday that I
wished to speak on this bill. I was continuously in the House from the very
beginning of private members' hour and rose in my place several times, but to
no avail. This matter did not just affect me. Other members in the House
intervened with the Acting Speaker as well, but to no avail.
I hope you will understand, Mr. Speaker, my frustration
in not being allowed to speak on this bill during debate last night, so that I
could place on record my full support and that of my party on Bill
C-287.
I certainly had a unique position to bring to the House
on this bill, not just to speak in favour of it, but in fact to bring a
different argument forward and to put that on the record, one that focused on
the precautionary principle, guaranteeing food safety, health protection and
survival of the family farm.
The Acting Speaker last night could not have known that
these were the points I wanted to get on the record, yet he did state in the
House that he knew that other speakers were speaking pro and con, which is why
he recognized them.
I resort to raising this with you today because of my
interest in this issue. I have been working hard on this matter in the House
and in committee during this and the previous parliament. In fact, on March 28,
2001, I introduced my own private member's bill, Bill C-310, an act to amend
the Food and Drugs Act, and I also brought forward a motion in May
2000.
To conclude, in the interest of ensuring as much debate
as possible during private members' business, I wonder if it is possible that
when a private members' bill is deferred by order of the House that the full
hour, rather than 45 minutes, is allowed for debate, and that in fact you will
review the record and my concern that all sides of the House and all members in
the House who would like to participate in such debate have an opportunity to
do so.
(1510)
The Speaker:
The Chair is in a position to deal with this matter. I
thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre for her
intervention.
The fact is when there are time limits on debate some
members do miss an opportunity to speak on a bill, but I am advised and I
understand this was debate at second reading stage. There will be an additional
two hours on this bill should it return from committee, both at the report and
third reading stage, so a total of two hours is allowed for debate
then.
I have no doubt that the hon. member will be making
representations to the committee in respect of this bill given the position she
has stated. There are other opportunities available to her beside the limited
time that is available for debate.
With respect to the 15 minutes taken up by the early
termination of the debate, might I suggest she raise that matter with the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs that have wondrous powers to
deal with changes in our rules and is always amenable to consider sensible and
useful suggestions that are put forward by hon. members from every side of the
House in that regard.
I will take the matter under advisement and get back to
the House if necessary, but I suspect in the circumstances this will be the end
of the matter.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Routine Proceedings]
* * *
[English]
Government Response to
Petitions
Mr. Joe Jordan (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Prime Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have
the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to
four petitions.
* * *
Claim Settlements (Alberta and Saskatchewan)
Implementation Act
Hon. Robert Nault (Minister of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-37, an
act to facilitate the implementation of those provisions of first nations'
claim settlements in the Provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan that relate to
the creation of reserves or the addition of land to existing reserves, and to
make related amendments to the Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation Act
and the Saskatchewan Treaty Land Entitlement Act.
(Motions deemed adopted,
bill read the first time and printed)
* * *
Operation Apollo
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it was exactly one year ago today that I
received the honour of becoming Canada's foreign affairs minister. I must say
it was beyond my imagination at that time that one year later we would be
sending Canadian troops into battle, but here we are.
(1515)
[Translation]
The Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence
are in Halifax right now—I know that the leader of the official opposition and
the leader of the NDP are there as well—to see off the three Canadian ships
taking part in Operation Apollo, Canada's military contribution to the
international campaign against terrorism.
[English]
The men and women who form the crew of the HMCS
Preserver, the Iroquois and the Charlottetown and all
Canada's Armed Forces personnel on land, sea or in the air are not only
courageous men and women, they are trained, skilled, equipped and ready to do
their duty for Canada and for our allies and partners who are depending upon
us.
[Translation]
As indicated last week by the Prime Minister, this is
certainly the first great battle of the 21st century.
[English]
I am certain that all members of the House and all
Canadians everywhere will want to join with me in expressing our pride and
sending our prayers to our troops and to their families as they set off to join
this most important battle, not one against a country, not against a people,
not even against a traditional army, but against the forces of extremism and
fanaticism that have sought and are seeking to undermine our open and free
societies.
We may all look forward to standing in the House again
one day very soon to welcome them home, to celebrate their courage and to thank
them for their sacrifice.
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured today to represent the
Canadian Alliance as we extend our support and heartfelt thanks to the Canadian
forces personnel leaving today in the war against terrorism.
We are pleased that our Prime Minister invited the
Leader of the Opposition to join him in Halifax today to show support for
Canada's military personnel serving on our naval ships as they head off to
defend our democracy and our freedom. As those ships leave today I want to
express my admiration for the men and women who serve our country.
It is no small thing to leave family and loved ones
behind. Indeed, there will be trying times ahead. Let us make no mistake about
it; we are asking these men and women to participate in war. We have no idea
how long it will last nor can we be certain what they will face.
As they have been throughout our history, our Canadian
forces personnel are proud and anxious to serve our country. It is up to us to
remember every day that we enjoy the right to live and work in a peaceful and
democratic society because our men and women were willing and are willing to
risk their lives and futures to make it so.
Canada is an incredible country and we are all
privileged to live in it. We owe that privilege to our military and the men and
women who serve. I urge the government to ensure that our soldiers, sailors and
airmen will be as safe as possible. While we cannot fully understand the
sacrifice made by the families of our proud service personnel, I hope it will
provide some comfort for them to know that all Canadians are joining with them
in praying for their safe return. They truly are the pride of
Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe
(Laurier--Sainte-Marie, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, on October 7, Canada agreed to provide
military support to the international coalition against terrorism. The Bloc
Quebecois immediately said that it agreed with the important support role the
Canadian armed forces had been given.
The international community must respond to the
terrible attacks of September 11 by striking back at the terrorists and those
who are aiding them.
Accordingly, the Bloc Quebecois salutes the first
Canadian troops leaving today for the theatre of operations. We have every
faith that they will accomplish their mission.
To the sailors departing the Port of Halifax today, and
to the troops who will follow, we say “We hope that all of you will return
safely, once your tour of duty is over”.
The fight against terrorism must result in as few
victims as possible, both within the coalition and on the ground. I therefore
call upon the troops to safeguard their own lives as well as the lives of
Afghani civilians.
Canadian troops have a responsibility to assist the
international coalition in its efforts to spare the civilian population as much
as possible.
We pay tribute to their courage, we thank them for
their sacrifices, and we assure them and their families that we admire them
greatly and that we are behind them all the way.
(1520)
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party I
join with the other parties in the House in marking the departure of the
Canadian naval task force from Halifax.
As we do our duty in parliament, faithful to the
freedom of expression the Canadian armed forces have fought to defend in the
past, we commend the men and women who are leaving Canada today for doing their
duty. We know that in some ways the call to such an assignment is an
opportunity to put training into practice and commitment into action. We also
know that whatever challenge may be associated with such an opportunity is
mixed with anxiety and the pain of distance from loved ones, a pain felt aboard
ship and at home back at the base.
To the men and women of the forces and their families
may we all pledge, despite whatever differences we may have, vigilance with
respect to the prospects for peace, with respect to their need to be well
equipped for the task, with respect to taking care of their families in their
absence, and with respect to wishing that they all return to Canada safe and
sound.
To this end the three NDP MPs from the Halifax area,
the members for Halifax, Dartmouth, and Sackville--Musquodoboit Valley--Eastern
Shore, are in Halifax today to participate in the farewell. We join with our
colleagues in Halifax in their support for the men and women of the Canadian
armed forces.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre,
PC/DR):
Madam Speaker, I begin by commending the government for
resuming the practice of ministerial statements in the House of Commons. I hope
the practice will be continued regularly throughout this conflict.
On behalf of the opposition coalition I extend to our
Canadian armed forces our deepest thanks and our best wishes as they prepare to
sail today in Operation Apollo. We are pleased to be represented at their
departure by our defence critic, the hon. member for Saint John.
Members of the House will know that Edmund Burke once
noted that the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do
nothing. We make the decisions here as to what Canada should do, but it is our
armed forces whose lives are on the line to fight the evil of terrorism. We are
proud of the commitment and professionalism of our Canadian troops. They are in
our prayers.
[Translation]
The men and women of the Canadian armed forces are
setting out today on a vital mission, that of combating terrorism and
protecting the values we hold most dear.
Freedom and democracy are the values on which our
society was built and which have made Canada the envied nation it is
today.
I say to the men and women who today are leaving the
comfort of their homes and the embraces of their children and loved ones that
the thoughts of Canadians accompany you on your journey. You honour us all and
I thank you.
* * *
[English]
Committees of the
House
Procedure and House
Affairs
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough,
Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the 30th
report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the
associate membership of some standing committees, in both official languages,
and I should like to move concurrence at this time.
(Motion agreed
to)
* * *
(1525)
[Translation]
Petitions
Genetically Modified Foods
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis,
Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I present a petition signed by 2,162
people and stating that Canadians are not, at this time, in a position to know
which food products contain genetically modified material.
The signatories of this petition call upon parliament
to pass Bill C-287, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (genetically
modified food).
* * *
[English]
Via Rail
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough,
Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present another
petition from citizens of the greater Peterborough area in favour of replacing
VIA Rail service between Toronto and Peterborough.
The petition has been signed by thousands of people who
believe the return of VIA Rail service would decrease congestion and accidents
on the highways, improve the environment by decreasing greenhouse emissions,
and improve the business environment not only of Peterborough but of the
greater Toronto area.
The petition has support in eight federal
ridings.
* * *
Questions on the Order
Paper
Mr. Joe Jordan (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Prime Minister, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered
today: Nos. 56 and 69.
[Text]
Question No. 56--
Mr. Peter
Adams: With regard to the involvement of Canadians (as
distinct from Canada) in activities in the Antarctic, can the government:
(a) provide a list of these Canadian activities; (b) indicate if
it monitors these in any way and if so, how; and (c) estimate its share
of the cost of these same activities?
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): The Canadian Polar Commission, CPC, has responsibility
for gathering, promoting and disseminating knowledge of the polar regions,
including the Antarctic, contributing to public awareness of the importance of
polar science to Canada; enhancing Canada’s international profile as a
circumpolar nation; and recommending polar science policy direction to
government.
In carrying out its mandate, the commission hosts
conferences and workshops, publishes information on subjects of relevance to
polar research and works closely with other governmental and non-governmental
agencies to promote and support Canadian study of the polar regions. The
commission established the Canadian Committee for Antarctic Research, CCAR, to
serve as a national advisory body on Antarctic matters and to act as a link
between the international Antarctic science community and Canadian scientists
active in or seeking to become involved in Antarctic and/or bipolar research.
Information on projects involving Canadians in the
Antarctic or on Antarctic-related subjects is submitted voluntarily to CCAR and
published by the CPC. The July 2000 report entitled “Current Canadian Research
Activities in the Antarctic, 1999-2000” identifies Canadian institutions
working on a wide range of Antarctic themes including human adaptation,
landscape evolution, ecology of extreme environments, paleoclimate
reconstruction and ice sheet dynamics. The report also contains a bibliography
of more than 80 Antarctic/bipolar scientific publications involving Canadians
since 1997. “Current Canadian Research Activities in the Antarctic/ is updated
on a periodic basis.
Canadians pursuing research activities in the Antarctic
and on Antarctic-related subjects receive funding form a wide range of sources,
including academic, governmental, non-governmental and private funders.
Canadians also often partner their research efforts with national programs of
other countries. As such, it is difficult to obtain accurate and reliable
information on the share of the costs Antarctic research that is provided by
the Canadian government.
Question No. 69--
Mr. Rick
Borotsik: Has the government developed strategies to attract
young people to farming and, if so, what are those strategies?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): On June 29,2001 the federal, provincial and territorial
agriculture ministers agreed, in principle, on a national action plan to make
Canada the world leader in food safety, innovation and environmental
protection. Part of the action plan includes efforts to renew the sector
through programming for farmers that addresses their unique needs and helps
them to change.
The sector is facing rapid change and is becoming an
increasingly knowledge intensive industry. As well, a demographic turnover will
occur over the coming years as a significant number of farmers retire.
Ministers agree that it is important for governments to help farmers adapt to
this changing environment and will work over the coming year to develop the
details of the agricultural policy framework encompassing specific
federal-provincial-territorial agreements in the areas of renewal,
environmentally sustainable agriculture and on-farm food safety.
For beginning farmers, this means ensuring that they
have the tools to prepare for successful careers in agriculture and access to
viable farming operations and financing arrangements.
Mr. Joe Jordan: I ask, Madam Speaker, that the
remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is that
agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[English]
Motions for Papers
Mr. Joe Jordan (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Prime Minister, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I ask that all Notices of Motions for
the Production of Papers also be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos):
Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos):
I wish to inform the House that because of the
ministerial statement government orders will be extended by 10
minutes.
* * *
Points of Order
Firearms Act
[Points of Order]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville,
Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, on September 6 the Minister of Justice
amended the firearms fees regulations by order in council waiving the fee for
registering firearms under certain conditions. I give reference to the Canada
Gazette, Part 2, Volume 135, No. 20 SOR/2001-336.
In making these amendments the minister bypassed
parliament and avoided using the laying of proposed regulations stipulated in
section 118 of the Firearms Act. She did so by using the authority granted her
under section 119(3) of the act which states in part:
|
--if
the federal Minister is of the opinion that the making of the regulation is so
urgent that section 118 should not be applicable in the
circumstances. |
Section 119(4) of the Firearms Act states:
|
Where
the federal Minister forms the opinion described in subsection (2) or (3), he
or she shall have a statement of the reasons why he or she formed that opinion
laid before each house of Parliament. |
The minister has had six weeks to explain to the House
why it was so urgent to bypass parliament with the regulations. To date, the
minister has failed to comply with section 119(4) of the Firearms Act. I appeal
to the Speaker to ask the minister when her statement of reasons will be tabled
in the House.
I realize that the Speaker does not normally rule on
matters involving constitutional law or the common law. However in cases where
the constitution or common law contain procedural requirements I believe it is
the Speaker's duty to ensure that they are enforced.
The House, through the enactment of section 119(4) of
the Firearms Act, ordered the minister to make a statement of reasons and table
it in the House of Commons. She has failed to do this, once again showing
disrespect for parliament.
I refer the House to Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary
Privilege in Canada, page 14, which states:
|
--the
Senate and the House of Commons have the power or right to punish actions that,
while not appearing to be breaches of any specific privilege, are offences
against their authority or dignity. These may include disobedience to their
legitimate commands-- |
The minister is in danger of being in contempt for a
third time. Not only that, she expects gun owners in Canada to obey a law she
herself has not complied with.
(1530)
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos):
The Chair has heard the point of order by the hon.
member. We will take it under advisement and come back to the House as soon as
possible.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Government Orders]
* * *
[English]
Anti-terrorism Act
The House resumed from October 16 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-36, an act to amend the
Criminal Code, the Official Secrets Act, the Canada Evidence Act, the Proceeds
of Crime (Money Laundering) Act and other acts, and to enact measures
respecting the registration of charities, in order to combat
terrorism, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert,
Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, the anti-terrorist legislation is a
substantive, complex piece of legislation which attempts to balance two very
important interests: the interests of security and the interests of our liberty
and openness. This is not an easy task. CA members will be proceeding in
committee with their ears and eyes open and their minds cognizant of the task
at hand. As the bill proceeds into committee, it is also incumbent upon all
members of the House to realize the seriousness of this task and to do the
balancing that is required.
There are many things we should be cautious of as we
move in this direction. Clearly, in the interests of security, we are going to
have to modify some of the liberties and freedoms and we are going to be
transferring more power to the state. Any time we transfer power from the
people, the individuals in our society, to the state, we should be cautious. I
think everyone remembers what Lord Acton said a while back in British history,
that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. It was true then
and it is true today.
Although corruption and abuse of powers exist in
democracies, they are far less a problem than in those societies dominated by
authoritarian regimes. It is clear we will not make our society purer, safer or
less corrupt by simply granting more powers to the state.
When looking at this legislation, we have to take a
serious look at a thing called unintended consequences and to limit that
possibility. For example, trade unions may be a bit apprehensive of this sort
of legislation. The power of a strike can have a disrupting effect on the
economy and society and we can get into problems in that area.
There are activists on both sides of the fence, right
and left, who are not in terrorist groups. They are strongly trying to advocate
their positions in a democratic society. In these times it is very easy for
people to include more than terrorists in the ambit of terrorism.
We have to understand another point, too. One of the
objectives of the other side in this war on terrorism is to attack our open and
free society. If our methods of fighting back have the effect of destroying our
openness and our freedom, I wonder what we have achieved.
What is the proper balance between these two competing
interests? I do not think there is an absolute answer but I am going to raise
some considerations which I think we should be looking at.
There is nothing called an absolute right in this
world. There is no such thing. Freedoms and individual freedoms have always
been tempered by public good and the freedoms of other people in our society.
One need look no further than the famous U.S. supreme court decision of Justice
Holmes where he stated that freedom of speech stops when a person stands up in
a crowded theatre and yells “fire”. That type of reasoning is what we have to
be looking at in our war against terrorism, what that balance is.
(1535)
Much is said about rights. Much is said about the
charter of rights. Section 7 of the charter identifies two rights that we have
as individuals in the country, the right to life and the right to security of
the person. Obviously terrorists have no respect for either of those. In order
to protect those two rights we may have to moderate or compromise some of the
other rights that we take for granted.
We must be concerned with unintended consequences and
guard against them. Section 183 leaves a lot of discretion to the government to
decide what is a terrorist organization and what is not. I think the decision
will be made behind closed doors. There will not be a lot of accountability on
it. There will be a lot of leeway in that area. There are people who are
concerned that groups that are terrorist groups may not be classified as such
for political reasons. That is one side of the sword. The other side of the
sword is that groups that are not terrorists may be identified as such for
political or other reasons. These are concerns.
Let me be clear that the actions of the terrorists
violate a lot of existing laws. The entire criminal code must have been
violated by the actions in New York and Washington, so there are laws in place.
In the House very often we think the solution to problems is to pass more laws
and regulations and that will win the war, but that is something we have to be
careful of. It is going to take more than laws to win this war.
It is quite apparent to anyone who looks at the
situation that holes in the immigration system and the security systems are
largely responsible for some of these problems. The U.S. has spent something
like $10 billion on immigration and security systems, however 19 hijackers and
hundreds of others moved freely in and out of North America monitoring their
subjects, studying up on them and even getting the training they did and no one
seemed to know what was going on. The intelligence agency was literally caught
with its pants down.
Somewhere along the line in this politically correct
age someone said it was not right to send spies and informants into groups.
Back in the 1950s and 1960s when intelligence agencies did these sorts of
things we would have been aware of the threat and the danger of these groups
and would have been better prepared. It is incumbent upon us to focus on the
target and marshal our resources and aim them right at the target rather than
shooting off in all sorts of directions.
More intrusive laws may be the answer. However the
immigration system is an area where we have to close loopholes and do things a
lot differently. We are going to have to hire more people. We will have to have
more resources. We are going to have to use information a lot better.
I recall in the House last February or March when we
were dealing with the Amodeo situation. Mr. Amodeo had moved in and out of the
country 17 times, if I recall correctly. Three ministers responded. The
solicitor general basically said he does not monitor what is going on in his
department and the RCMP does not co-ordinate its activities with the
immigration department. The immigration minister said her people do not
communicate with the RCMP. This thing went around and around.
(1540)
In fact when Amodeo's wife came into the country the
immigration minister even said that we do not ask questions about their marital
status or their husbands because that would violate some right that she thought
was important. This has to stop.
Buck passing is not going to win the war against
terrorism. The buck stops in this House. We have to get our act together, quit
protecting our turf and our territory and quit passing things around in a
circle. Somebody has to take responsibility.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Routine Proceedings]
* * *
[English]
Committees of the
House
Transport and Government
Operations
Mr. Joe Jordan (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Prime Minister, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, there have been consultations among the
House leaders and I think if you seek it, you would find consent for the
following motion. I move:
That the Standing Committee on
Transport and Government Operations be authorized to travel to the Lester B.
Pearson International Airport in Toronto on October 18 and that the necessary
staff accompany the committee. |
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos):
The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is there
agreement?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed
to)
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Government Orders]
* * *
[English]
Anti-Terrorism Act
The House resumed from consideration of the motion that
Bill C-36, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Official Secrets
Act, the Canada Evidence Act, the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act and
other acts, and to enact measures respecting the registration of charities, in
order to combat terrorism, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey,
Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I would like to start my debate on
terrorism by quoting the Prime Minister, as it captures the feelings of
Canadians very well. He stated:
Our enemies have made a fatal
miscalculation. They have mistaken our freedom for weakness. They have mistaken
our openness and generosity for a lack of spine. They have mistaken our values
for a lack of resolve. And they will be proven wrong -- on every
count. |
I believe that encapsulates the events of September 11
and our response to those events both in the United States and Canada, and for
that matter terrorism around the world.
I thank the Prime Minister and the House leader for
providing me yet another opportunity to address my concerns and comments to the
House and to Canadians. There has been in excess of 40 hours of debate and
discussion surrounding our proposed anti-terrorism legislation.
I would like to touch on three specific issues
regarding the anti-terrorism debate. First, I will shed some light on the act
itself. Second, I will address the response from the opposition parties. Third,
I will address our overriding responsibilities as Canadians and as a
government.
What I have to say about the act will clear up some
misconceptions that have been brought forward by the Alliance. The purpose or
intent of the anti-terrorism bill is to specifically identify, prosecute,
convict and punish terrorists. It provides new investigative tools for law
enforcement and national security agencies. What is very important is that it
ensures Canadian values of respect and fairness are preserved and the root
causes of hatred are addressed through stronger laws against hate crimes and
propaganda.
Terrorism can only succeed if it accomplishes four
basic things. First, if it creates a lack of confidence in Canadians or free
thinking people with respect to their economy, they will achieve success in
some small part. Second, if they compromise our sense of security, they achieve
a bit of success on that part. Third, if they transfer the hate in their hearts
into ours, they accomplish in some small bit their resolve. Fourth and most
important, if they cause us to forgo some of our civil liberties, some of the
things enshrined in our charter of rights and our constitution, then they truly
succeed.
That is the delicate balance I want to address in the
House today. I will certainly carry that message back to my riding as well. It
is a delicate balance between civil liberties and the number one priority and
challenge of a government, the protection of its citizens. The government has
risen to that challenge.
The government has moved in a very methodical fashion
in making sure that Canadians have the protection and receive the security they
deserve in the country contrary to much of the untruths, speculations and
fearmongering that has surrounded this debate.
(1545)
The main objective of the anti-terrorism bill is to
stop terrorism from getting into Canada and to protect Canadians from terrorist
acts. That is the overriding theme of this piece of legislation. It would bring
forward the tools to identify, prosecute, convict and punish terrorists. It
would prevent the Canada-U.S. border from being held hostage by terrorists,
impacting not only on our society but specifically on our economy. This piece
of legislation lays that out very effectively.
I am sure many interesting points will be brought
forward in committee. I look forward to seeing what the committee brings back
to the House. I urge my colleagues in the opposition parties to work in a
non-partisan fashion to make sure the legislation gets back into the House, so
that we can pass the bill into law and provide the necessary security and
support for the citizens of Canada. If the opposition parties drop their
partisan approach that will happen.
I present the next issue with a heavy heart. Most of
the people in the House and back in my riding know that I do not often
challenge the ideas of the opposition. I normally do not show any disrespect
for its views because if I show disrespect I cannot expect it to respect my
ideas and values. However I have to demonstrate a precedent and speak against
the opposition.
There have been a tremendous number of falsehoods
surrounding this debate. The Leader of the Opposition says that he is taking
the high road, that he will support his Prime Minister, and that there will be
less rhetoric in the House surrounding many of these issues.
However the exact opposite is taking place. It disturbs
me greatly and I cannot help it. I do feel sympathy for the fact that the
majority of Canadians at this point in time are not supporting the Alliance,
but that is no excuse for fearmongering or hot button politics.
Every member in the House of Commons has a
responsibility to Canadians to come together in this time of crisis against
this ultimate evil. They have a responsibility to work collectively to ensure
the security of the country.
It is not just about military action. It is about a
number of different things. It is about stability in the economy. It is not
about painting various immigrant communities in our country with a brush of
evil or as terrorists. That is an absolute shame. It is a travesty that those
kinds of discussions have been taking place in the House.
We have heard much doom and gloom from the opposition.
Our responsibility is to instill confidence in Canadians from coast to coast to
coast to make sure they get on with their lives and that the necessary tools
are in place so that our economy is not adversely impacted in a significant
fashion. Many of the comments coming from the opposition contradict that idea
at its base to the greatest extent possible.
I am speaking on behalf of the vast majority if not all
Canadians when I say that we must lay down a rule right now. Enough is enough.
We need to work in a collective, non-partisan fashion to make sure that
Canadians get the level of protection they deserve. I make a pledge to the
House and to the 30 or so million people living in the country that I will do
everything in my ability as a parliamentarian and as a Canadian to make sure we
deal with this terrorist threat.
The last issue I want to touch on is our responsibility
as parliamentarians but primarily as Canadians. We have an obligation not only
to ourselves but to future generations not to let these evildoers and cowards
impact our lives in such a fashion that we would be afraid to make trips and to
follow through on the normal plans our families would make whether it be a
house, car or furniture purchase, or whatever it may be.
If we let these terrorist activities impact us in that
fashion then they win in some small way. Canadians should rise up with the
sense of confidence that our economy has the right tools in place.
(1550)
Our finance minister is looked upon internationally as
one of the greatest finance ministers in history, not simply for Canada but
around the world. The Canadian economy is in great shape to move forward and
deal with this situation with him at the helm of our finances. There is an
incumbent responsibility on all Canadians to make sure that they do move
forward with their plans.
I have one of the largest training bases in Canada in
my riding. I extend my best wishes to the men and women in the military;
Colonel Reid, the base commander; and all the troops leaving from Halifax today
for engagement in the Middle East. On behalf of all 301 members of parliament,
the 120,000 people in my riding, and the 30-some million people in Canada, our
hearts and our prayers are with them.
We want to make sure that this battle is won
effectively. We appreciate the commitment shown to our country and we wish them
a safe and quick return. We thank the men and women in our military for their
absolutely patriotic effort in defending our country.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête
(Kamouraska--Rivière-du-Loup--Témiscouata--Les Basques, BQ):
Madam Speaker, I am very impressed at having the
opportunity to speak to Bill C-36. When we were elected last year, we were all
given the mandate to represent our fellow citizens. I do not think anyone here
in this House expected to be carrying out this type of debate. We have a heavy
responsibility in doing so.
This is the debate on second reading. It is important
to bear in mind that, at second reading, the debate focuses on the principle of
the bill, What is involved, then, is the balance between the battle against
terrorism and the defence of human rights, between the security that must be in
place and freedom, the respect of the right of citizens in this society to act,
and their protection in their dealings with the machinery of government and the
justice system.
This is, therefore, a very important substantive
debate. It is also one that leads us to much consideration of the matter of
good faith. Today the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice have both
admitted that this bill may have been prepared a little hastily and that there
may be some elements that will need to be looked at in the committee and report
stages.
The bill includes elements of interest. We will have to
listen very carefully to the witnesses who come to tell us what they think of
this legislation. People such as members of the bar, for example, may deal with
the bill's implications and impact, and with the protection of human rights.
Others will also address the issue of security and the importance of having an
anti-terrorism act.
In light of the September 11 events, I think we agree
on the need for strong and decisive action. We must eradicate terrorism and one
of the tools at our disposal is the proper use of legislation. We have a duty
to ensure the protection not only of the public, but also of its rights. This
is why the Bloc Quebecois has adopted a very responsible attitude.
Many aspects of this bill deserve to be examined very
thoroughly. I am thinking, for example, of the definition of a terrorist
activity. Because of the need to act quickly, we may have a definition that
will lead to abuse. We will have to ensure that there a proper balance is
struck between police forces' ability to act and the assurance that all honest
citizens in our society will nevertheless be protected. This is a very
important aspect that needs to be thoroughly examined in committee. This issue
is not an easy one. We must give it very careful consideration.
Another very important element is the fact that we are
faced with an exceptional situation. We would not want our society to have to
take such strong action as a matter of course. We are faced with a urgent
problem which we all hope will disappear over time.
Therefore, perhaps we should consider having an act
that will be in effect for a limited time only. This would ensure that when the
threat of terrorism no longer exists, when we are in control again and when
public security is ensured, there will be a time limit so that the government
will not use on a permanent and regular basis means that we do not wish to see
used in our society. So, we should determine whether this bill could include
specific provisions that would lapse over time and not be of a permanent
nature. Are there others provisions that deserve to be of a permanent
nature?
For example, numerous aspects of the international
conventions that were signed should be maintained. However, there may be other
elements for which this is not necessary.
For instance, if access to information mechanisms are
retained, is what we are asking acceptable, if the government approves
revocation of the powers of the privacy commissioner in order to take them over
itself? I do not think anyone in the House would dare introduce such a proposal
under normal circumstances. The question will have to be asked if the measure
is to apply. Is it to apply to the medium term and is it renewable? The
government should perhaps make sure that certain elements have a time frame in
the legislation and that, as we have asked, there will be an annual review of
the law.
(1555)
The bill provides that the review will be at the end of
three years. In this area, a lot of things can happen in three years. A lot of
bad things can happen. I think the government would do better to pay careful
attention, that is have an annual review.
The bill will be passed soon, this fall, before the
Christmas holidays, and then, in the coming year, action may have to be taken.
There must be follow-up in committee. Next year, when parliament resumes, we
would have to assess whether we did what had to be done, whether government had
gone far enough and whether certain things should be corrected. These elements
are important.
I would also like to speak to the question of
wiretapping. Today, in question period, it became clear that simply defining
which laws cover this aspect is not clear. Things are not entirely clear. Does
it mean issuing a blank cheque and permitting things, which, after a while,
could be used for something totally different from terrorism surveillance?
These questions must be asked. It is a matter of responsibility to do so; it
has nothing to do with impeding the work of parliament.
In examining this bill, I believe that the Bloc
Quebecois has had a very responsible attitude. We have not blocked the bill. We
believe that we must take time to study the bill seriously and carefully. There
are many elements to consider.
Perhaps it is of less importance, but Bill C-16 on
charities, a bill with some substantive problems, has been integrated into the
bill. We must use the opportunity to examine these issues carefully at
committee in order to see if improvements can be made in this area.
Once again, this is extraordinary legislation for a
society that should normally be able to function without this type of
legislation. We agree that Canadians must know that steps are indeed being
taken to fight against terrorism, but that we will ensure there will be a
balanced approach at the same time.
Given all of these points, I think we must proceed with
care. The committee must be allowed to do its work as well and as seriously as
it can, and must hear advice and ensure balance at all times.
The debate at second reading is on whether or not this
bill should be studied in committee. According to Marleau and Montpetit's
House of Commons Procedure and Practice, and I quote:
|
--passage of the motion for second reading simply implied that
the House had given preliminary consideration to the bill and that, without any
commitment as to the final passage of the bill, it had authorized its reference
to a committee for detailed scrutiny. |
Particularly important bills such as this test the
entire system. They test our parliamentary procedures. This is a bill which
merits careful attention. It is a bill which asks us to consider the good will
of the parties in the House.
The Prime Minister said that this bill deserved serious
consideration. We expect that, when it returns from committee, there will be
suggestions for amendments which could make it much more effective and bring it
more sharply into line with the stated objectives.
When the committee has done its work, it will be up to
us to say whether or not the new form it sends us is acceptable. We will also
have report stage to evaluate the result of the committee's work and, finally,
debate at third reading.
Throughout this process, the Bloc Quebecois considers
it very important that it be possible to improve the bill at each stage in
order to make it acceptable, useful and desirable to our society in the present
special context. We must not forget that it is also a piece of legislation that
may have an impact on human rights legislation for a long time to
come.
The international crisis we are now experiencing will
have repercussions not just on security, but also on the protection of rights
for the future. We must devote whatever time and energy is necessary to make
this the best legislation possible. We must be attentive to the requirements
submitted so that we end up with a balanced bill.
This must be our objective: a bill that strikes the
right balance between the fight against terrorism and respect for human rights.
This is what I hope we will do together, with a minimum of partisan politics,
so that ultimately we have an opportunity to produce an excellent tool to help
in the fight against terrorism and the defence of human rights.
(1600)
[English]
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington,
Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I rise today to address this very
important anti-terrorism bill, Bill C-36. I happen to believe that this is
historic legislation and certainly one of the most important we will deal with
in this the 37th parliament.
Many people have said, and I very much agree with them,
that society and the world have changed as a result of the events on September
11. We watched in horror as 6,000 people lost their lives. We watched in horror
at the kind of terrorist attacks that were perpetrated on our friend, neighbour
and ally to the south, the United States. We all wondered what was going to
happen next.
I was pleased to see, in concert with my constituents
in Waterloo--Wellington, that there was a kinship of grief around the world
that developed in concert with the victims and their families in New York,
Washington, D.C. and the surrounding states, as well as Pennsylvania.
I believe that in our effort to deal with grief we pass
through a number of stages. I think it is fair to say that sadness and despair,
fear and anger are some of those stages but after a while we come to resolve,
and I think that is where we are now at.
One of the ways to deal with tragedy, especially in
this fashion, is to become determined and resolved to make sure it never
happens again. That is why I thought the Prime Minister spoke very well the
other day when he talked about getting together the kind of resolve necessary
to carry forward in a very meaningful way and to act on behalf of all Canadians
in concert with what they believe are fundamental and core values, not only for
this country and the people of this great country but for other freedom loving
people around the world.
As members know, the member states of the United
Nations have joined in a common purpose, and that is to shut down terrorism.
Canada, like our international partners, must move on all fronts. It is
important to note that we are prepared to do that.
In recent days we have seen increased security measures
adopted at our airports. The assets of Osama bin Laden and his associates, the
people who have brought about such destruction, have been frozen. The United
Nations Security Council unanimously passed a resolution on September 28
calling on states to work together urgently to prevent and suppress terrorist
acts, including increased co-operation and full implementation of the important
and relevant international conventions relating to terrorism, such as the
convention on the financing of terrorism.
In response, the Canadian government has acted and
acted with caution, noting full well that we need to think through our actions,
and has implemented new regulations to target terrorist financing. The proposed
anti-terrorism act that we are debating today further criminalizes the act of
contributing to terrorist groups.
I said that it is essential to act on all fronts if we
are going to defeat terrorism, and I meant that. Where do legislative
strategies fit into this picture? We need new and more focused tools to allow
the justice system to fight terrorism. We are not dealing here with ordinary
criminals. We need to build a new legal framework that will disable terrorist
networks and prevent them from developing the capability of financing, planning
and carrying out their attacks on society and, by extension, on
democracy.
The proposed anti-terrorism act that we are debating
today implements the international convention on the suppression of terrorism
and the international convention on the suppression of terrorist bombings.
These are important measures in keeping with our international obligations.
New criminal code offences are created for
participating in, facilitating or carrying out terrorist activities. Procedures
are established for the seizure, the restraint and the forfeiture of property
belonging to terrorist groups. We mean it when we say it. That is the point. We
are getting tough because we need to. We need to act accordingly because that
is what Canada needs to do to defend the precious system that we
have.
Bill C-36 also proposes criminal code provisions to
establish, by establishment and by regulation, a list of terrorist entities.
(1605)
This measure will allow identification of entities that
are clearly involved or associated with terrorist activities. The notion of
listing terrorist organizations has its precedent in the United Nations and,
indeed, Canada's United Nations Act already adopts lists of terrorists and
terrorist organizations identified by the United Nations last year, including
those of Osama bin Laden. The point is that we have the precedent and we are
acting accordingly.
I want to go into this listing procedure a little more
if I may, because this measure is one of the most important elements of the
bill. I urge all members of the House as well as the members of the justice
committee to examine this measure closely.
The placing of any organization or purpose on the list
of terrorist groups is a very elaborate procedure, as it should be. Section
83.05 of the criminal code as proposed in Bill C-36 provides that the ultimate
decision to add a name to the list is made by the governor in council. There
must be “reasonable grounds” to do so, to believe that the entity, a group, a
person or whatever, either “has carried out, attempted to carry out,
participated in or facilitated a terrorist activity” or has acted “on behalf
of, at the direction of or in association with” such an entity.
Thus the clear focus of this procedure is on
establishing that the group or individual has been engaged in terrorism. This
is how it should be, because this clarifies in a way that is consistent with
what I believe to be the values of Canada and consistent with the values of the
great charter of rights and freedoms that we in this country enjoy.
I want to emphasize too that additional safeguards are
built into this process. Before the governor in council makes a decision the
solicitor general must first be satisfied, again on reasonable grounds, that
there is such terrorist activity occurring. Furthermore, a group that wishes to
challenge its presence on the list may apply to the solicitor general to have
its name removed. If the solicitor general does not remove the name, the group
can apply to a judge for a review of that decision. Mechanisms are also
established to address cases of mistaken identity. In any event, the solicitor
general must review the list every two years in order to recommend that a
listed entity remain on the list or in fact be removed.
It should be noted also that the bill also contains a
detailed definition of terrorist activity and a specific offence related to
participating in, facilitating, harbouring and instructing terrorist activity.
Again, I urge my colleagues to look closely at the details of this definition
since it is at the very heart of what the bill does. Expressed another way,
Bill C-36 is premised on a clear focus on terrorist crimes and it breaks new
ground in Canadian law in its willingness to embrace a distinct set of
definitions. It is important, therefore, that we find consensus on these very
important concepts.
A terrorist activity as described in proposed section
83.01 includes acts that would amount to an offence under one of the
international anti-terrorist conventions to which Canada is committed, but it
is also defined as “an act or omission” inside or outside Canada that is
committed “in whole or in part, for a political, religious or ideological
purpose, objective or cause”. It is evident that having such a religious or
ideological purpose should not in itself be an offence. It is only when this
purpose is linked with an intention to intimidate the public or a segment of
the public with regard to its security and is also linked to an intention to
cause death or serious bodily harm by the use of violence that it becomes a
terrorist activity. There are also other factors that come into play, including
an intention to endanger a person's life or to cause substantial property
damage with serious harm resulting to a person.
Finally, I would like to return to my original
question: What is the role of our laws in fighting terrorism and increasing our
sense of security from terrorists? I suggest that the law, or more precisely
the rule of law, is an important reference point for Canadians in assessing
what needs to be done to protect our society from those who indeed do not
respect the law or civilized values.
At the end of the day, Bill C-36, the bill we are
debating today, is an effective measure that should be looked at closely and in
fact will be looked at closely at the justice committee. There may or may not
be amendments based on what the members think and the witnesses say, but when
it comes down to it, I hope we will act as one, as the Parliament of Canada, in
a way consistent with the values not only of the charter of rights and freedoms
but the values of all Canadians.
(1610)
We will do so in the best interests of this great
country of ours, based on safety and security for the citizens of Canada and
for those in the wider world and in that community who believe in the
fundamental rights of liberty, freedom and democracy.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville,
Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, on September 11 the world changed, but
after observing the actions of the government last month I am wondering whether
Liberals have changed enough.
While I as a Canadian support an aggressive campaign to
combat terrorism in Canada and abroad, as a parliamentarian I have grave
concerns. I have grave concerns, first about what is in this bill, second about
what is not in this bill, and third about the government's track record in
violating the rights and freedoms of law abiding citizens. I will spend the
rest of my time explaining these three points.
My first concern is that this terrorism bill shifts the
public, the media and parliament's focus to increasing the government's
legislative powers rather than to the more pressing problem of lack of
resources committed to fighting terrorism and government's misplaced
priorities.
On Monday on national television Mr. Reid Morden, the
former head of CSIS, stated:
I think that CSIS has sufficient
powers under the CSIS act to do its job now if it has the resources to do it.
That's always been the problem with both CSIS and the RCMP. They have lots of
powers. They certainly don't have enough trained bodies. |
I know where they can get more resources and I know
where they can get more people to help them do the job. I will
explain.
While parliament is focused on the legality and the
appropriateness of this anti-terrorism legislation, there is a real danger that
we are missing the real priority, which is that the RCMP, CSIS and our Canadian
forces need more staff, more training and more equipment.
There is evidence that the government still has not
realized what the real public safety priorities are. Here are a couple of
glaring examples which I will explain. These are examples of misplaced
priorities. Last week the RCMP participated in a roadblock in Alberta, checking
hunters for firearm licences. Duck hunters are not a threat to public safety;
terrorists are. Also, three weeks ago six RCMP officers raided an office of the
Responsible Firearms Owners Coalition of B.C. for putting up signs during last
November's election, allegedly in contravention of the Elections
Act.
The musical ride has been redeployed to security of the
nation so surely these highly trained RCMP officers in Alberta and B.C. should
be redeployed as well, from their fight against duck hunters to the fight
against terrorism.
The most recent data available through access to
information shows that the government has 1,800 staff, a lot of RCMP officers,
working on a totally useless gun registry instead of fighting the war against
terrorism. The government has already spent over half a billion dollars to
register tens of millions of legally owned guns and to license millions of
totally innocent firearms owners instead of redirecting these human and
financial resources to the fight against a real threat, terrorism.
Why not secure our borders? Why not do the things that
the people of this country want to be priorities? Let us put our money where we
will get the most bang for our buck.
Yesterday the justice minister gave this assurance to
the national media. She stated:
Our legislation is fair in that we
are not unwittingly and unintentionally, perhaps, involving those who are
completely innocent either as individuals or organizations. |
The hunters in Alberta who had their property seized by
RCMP officers last week were completely innocent individuals until this
government failed to issue licences to tens of thousands of gun owners who had
applied for them. They tried to comply with the law and could not.
The responsible firearms owners of B.C. association was
also a completely innocent organization until the government passed a gag law
prohibiting free speech during an election campaign. This is the same gag law
that is now being challenged in the courts while we are spending RCMP resources
going after these people.
We have to examine the government's public assurances
as closely as we do its legislation. I have had a lot of experience here in the
last eight years and I speak from that. We have to examine the government's
track record on other pieces of legislation it has passed before we accept its
public assurances as a legal commitment.
The Canadian Bar Association, the Criminal Lawyers'
Association of Ontario and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association have
already raised concerns about what is in the bill.
The civil libertarians say the bill could erode
democracy and cite the following provisions. First, it would permit the arrest
of individuals without warrant if it is believed that would prevent terrorist
activity; second, it would compel people to provide information related to
terrorism to an investigating judge without charges being laid or a crime
having been committed; third, it would reduce safeguards on obtaining and
extending warrants for wiretaps; fourth, it would make it illegal to facilitate
terrorist activity; and fifth, there would be the unprecedented creation of
judicial investigatory hearings.
(1615)
They even criticized the definition of terrorist
activity itself. An article quoted Alan Borovoy of the Canadian Civil Liberties
Association, who said that in the past Nelson Mandela and the African National
Congress would have been terrorists under the definition, while today the Kurds
of Iraq would likely qualify in their battle against Saddam Hussein's
repression. He stated:
I am hard-pressed to appreciate why
all this has been considered necessary because I'm very aware of the
considerable power that already exists. |
He added that some of the relaxed rules for police
surveillance are simply “a gratuitous undermining of safeguards” that will do
nothing to apprehend terrorists.
These are serious concerns because, as I said before,
the government has established a track record of violating rights and freedoms
of law abiding citizens while in the pursuit of political priorities rather
than public safety priorities.
As an example, just six weeks ago the privacy
commissioner of Canada issued a report entitled “Review of the Personal
Information Handling Practices of the Canadian Firearms Program”. I made some
startling discoveries in this 81 page report. On pages 4 and 7 he reported that
the justice minister had ignored the privacy commissioner's suggestions for
years. On pages 4 and 5 the privacy commissioner says that the firearms
registry ranges from a significant intrusion on privacy to highly intrusive. On
pages 5 and 20 he reports that the justice minister has not implemented a
promise made to parliament way back in 1997. On page 7 he reports that the
justice minister has ignored two recommendations made by parliamentary
committee. On page 10 he reports that the justice minister cannot provide a
single point of accountability, as she promised. On page 19 the privacy
commissioner disagrees with the justice minister's claim that all private and
personal information is protected. On pages 20 and 21 he goes on to say that
citizens may have to file up to five requests to access their personal
information.
On pages 23 to 29 the privacy commissioner found that:
the RCMP keeps a firearms interest police database on 3.5 million Canadians a
secret from them; the RCMP is violating the Privacy Act with operations of the
police information retrieval system; the RCMP firearms interest police database
exceeds authority granted in section 5 of the Firearms Act; and the firearms
interest police database on 3.5 million Canadians is full of unsubstantiated,
derogatory information, unproven charges or allegations and hearsay, and even
contains information on witnesses and victims. We must remember that this is a
database authorized in 1995 by parliament with the passage of Bill C-68. This
was the database that was only supposed to contain information on potentially
dangerous individuals.
I cite all these examples to highlight the fact that we
need to examine the legislation before us today. The justice minister and the
government clearly have not kept their promises to safeguard the privacy rights
of law abiding citizens.
What is my point? Laws passed without enough thought by
the House and laws poorly implemented by government bureaucrats can result in
the violation of privacy rights of law abiding citizens. This is why we have
every right to be skeptical of the assurances the minister is giving us today
about this piece of legislation. We must remember that the previous piece of
legislation I cited was rammed through parliament using time allocation, ending
all debate.
In violation of our citizens' privacy rights, Bill C-68
also violated the rights of millions of law abiding citizens, trampling on
fundamental property rights, placing in jeopardy our charter of rights to be
secure against unreasonable search and seizure, eliminating our right to remain
silent, reversing the onus of proof and thereby eliminating our rights to be
presumed innocent until proven guilty, infringing on the treaty rights of
aboriginal people, and intruding unnecessarily into the exclusive
constitutional jurisdiction of the provinces over property and civil
rights.
I will conclude with what I said at the beginning of my
speech. I have grave concerns about some of the things that are not in the
bill. The government has not created a national sky marshal service for
domestic passenger flights. That does not make sense. The government has not
created a comprehensive national border protection service that would include
ports police.
(1620)
The government has not reinstated the death penalty for
those convicted of causing death by acts of terrorism. The government has not
provided for the extradition of criminals and terrorists using Canada as a safe
haven, including extradition of any terrorist attempting to avoid the death
penalty in other countries.
The government has not strengthened our deportation
laws. The government has not provided safeguards in this legislation that would
allow individuals and organizations unjustly caught by this legislation. It has
not strengthened property rights. It has not included legislative commitments
to provide the resources necessary to the RCMP, CSIS and defence. It has not
included the legislation provision to make restitution to victims, and there is
no--
(1625)
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos):
The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.
Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South
Centre, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, it pleases me to be able to speak to
Bill C-36. I want to congratulate the Minister of Justice and her team who put
together such a comprehensive piece of legislation to deal with the terrorist
threat here in Canada. It is a most impressive bill.
Bill C-36 finds the delicate balance of protecting our
charter rights and our civil liberties, indeed protecting the essence of a
democratic society, while ensuring greater security for our country and
ourselves.
What we have before us is a strong response and one
that effectively deals with the increased threats of terrorism within our
borders. The full implementation of the bill will go a long way to see that
terrorist operations are shut down within Canada.
With this new bill, we will be able to strike at the
roots of terrorism. Bill C-36 would permit a court to order the removal of any
hate propaganda from any public place or computer. This is a valuable tool in
restricting messages which may incite others to commit violent acts based on
any hate on another group of people.
Police agencies would have great ability to monitor the
communications of terrorist factions and would be no longer constrained by the
last hope clause and by the previous 60 day limitation on wiretap. They have
been removed so we will be better protected from planned acts of
terrorism.
We will also have the ability to cripple these
terrorist organizations financially with the amendment to the Proceeds of Crime
(Money Laundering) Act and the enactment of the charities registrations act.
Preventing terrorists from accessing funds prevents them from committing acts
of terror.
Terrorist acts are also being added to the criminal
code. Collecting funds for terrorists, knowingly harbouring terrorists,
participating in terrorist activities and instructing others to commit
terrorist activities are soon all to be added to the criminal code as offences.
These are serious crimes and they will carry serious penalties, up to life in
prison. These sentences would ensure that those involved are incarcerated for a
long period of time, no longer part of the loop of terrorist organizations to
which they belong and hopefully it will no longer exist.
Even though overall I find the bill to be a formidable
response to a challenging situation, I do have some matters that I hope the
committee will address and provide guidance. These relate to the preventative
arrest clauses of the bill. I am certain that the implementation of the
preventative arrests will be an important tool for police officers to have in
putting a halt to terrorist activities, and for that I am glad that these
provisions are included in the bill.
I am concerned of the possibility of its implementation
in the situation where no terrorism is planned. I am aware that the bill
defines what is terrorist activity and what is a legitimate protest. However,
as we have seen before, it is possible for a protest to escalate and suddenly
once a peaceful gathering becomes filled with violence, all the result of the
actions of a few individuals.
While I cannot stand here and say that violent protests
are desirable or should be encouraged, I fear that the measures within the bill
could run over and unwittingly implement themselves at one of these
protests.
I do not believe that a protest, violent or otherwise,
is a terrorist activity. I worry for the innocent people of which there are
many within these protest groups. As I have stated it is a very small group
that incite violence. However, it seems that all members of the larger group,
in which the smaller one dwells, face the potential of suffering merely because
they happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
This is not a new issue for Canada and it is one that
will not go away. Because this is the case, we must ensure that the charter
rights of the individuals who are no more than bystanders to the melee that is
taking place beside them are protected. They should not see their democratic
rights disappear because of this bill.
We must be vigilant to ensure that there are no
provisions for them to be automatically arrested and detained for a minimum of
24 hours merely as preventative measures. There is nothing to prevent for the
vast majority of the people. They are a peaceful lot who only wish to make
their views known to others.
(1630)
There are many cases where, as one mother said to me,
they are among the best and the brightest. They have chosen to show up in
support of a cause, not to incite violent or criminal acts and certainly none
of them have terrorism on their mind.
I do not want to see the provisions of the bill used
wrongly in a protest situation or the police easily exploit them. Even with the
provision that the attorney general needs to approve of a preventative arrest,
one hopes that no police officer can inappropriately circumvent this and seek
the approval of the attorney general after an arrest is made.
Knowing that at any time they can be taken into custody
by a police officer merely on the suspicion that they could involve themselves
in a terrorist act is frightening many people. The bill would ensure legal
protection for these people to go out and protest by themselves or with others.
It is our responsibility to ensure that procedures are in place so that they do
not risk a situation where they lose that right.
It is my hope that the committee will examine closely
the amendment to section 83 of the criminal code. I have full confidence in its
ability and I trust it will remove any remaining doubt concerning the
definition of terrorist activity that may exist in relation to the protesting
being swept in with this definition.
Time will perhaps be the truest test of what will
happen with Bill C-36, and I am very pleased that the opportunity exists three
years after royal assent to review the bill and its impact on society. I share
some of the concerns expressed by others that the committee may see fit to
implement a sunset clause on some of the provisions.
I hope that I am still an active member of the House
when the time comes so that I can look back on the three years that Bill C-36
would have been in existence. I also hope that the Department of Justice and
the committee takes not only a proactive role in recording the uses of these
laws, but perhaps even considers a required reporting procedure for law
enforcement officials.
With requirements such as these, we would be accurately
able to see what impact these laws have on Canada and that they were not abused
in any way.
When I sought election to this office for the first
time in the fall of 2000, I could never have anticipated the awesome
responsibility that I would find myself in as part of this body: the
responsibility of balancing security and freedom and the responsibility of
ensuring that our children continue to live in a free and democratic society
that provides opportunities for all of its citizens.
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos):
It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform
the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment
are as follows: the hon. member for
Kamouraska--Rivière-du-Loup--Témiscouata--Les
Basques, Canadian Airline Industry; and the hon. member for
Vancouver East, Discrimination.
As this will be the first time the House holds
adjournment proceedings since the changes to our standing orders, I would like
to remind hon. members of the new system we have adopted.
A member raising a matter may speak for up to four
minutes, as was the case in the past. The minister or the parliamentary
secretary replying will now have up to four minutes to do so.
[Translation]
Then the hon. member raising the question and the
minister or parliamentary secretary replying will each have one minute to
respond. I therefore encourage all hon. members to prepare themselves
accordingly.
[English]
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt,
PC/DR):
Madam Speaker, the results of the terrorist attacks on
September 11 and the subsequent perceived inadequate response of the Liberal
government has led to some increased calls by United States legislators to
tighten border security and entry requirements between our countries. However,
the need of our government at this time is to try to focus not on the common
border with the United States, but on securing our own shores against the
terrorist threat.
A motion was put forward in the House on September 18,
which stated:
That the House calls upon the
government to introduce anti-terrorism legislation similar in principle to the
United Kingdom's Terrorism Act 2000, and that such legislation provide
for: |
|
the
naming of all known international terrorist organizations operating in
Canada; |
|
a
complete ban on fundraising activities in support of terrorism, and provisions
for the seizure of assets belonging to terrorists or terrorist
organizations; |
|
the
immediate ratification of the International Convention for the Suppression of
the Financing of Terrorism; |
|
the
creation of specific crimes for engaging in terrorist training activities in
Canada or inciting terrorist acts abroad from Canada; |
|
the
prompt extradition of foreign nationals charged with acts of terrorism, even if
the charges are capital offences; and |
|
the
detention and deportation to their country of origin of any people illegally in
Canada or failed refugee claimants who have been linked to terrorist
organizations. |
I was very happy to join my opposition coalition
colleagues in supporting the motion, but regrettably the Prime Minister and his
fellow Liberal MP's voted against it, so the motion was defeated 199 to 70.
We see once again that, despite the best efforts of
opposition MP's and our own security agencies, the government is refusing to
change domestic policies according to the response that is required.
The Prime Minister's assertion that responsibility for
the interdiction of terrorists entering the United States from Canada is that
of U.S. border officials, merely illustrates his failure to recognize the
responsibility of preventing such individuals from entering Canada in the first
place. The border with our American neighbours involves the crossing of 500,000
people a day and over a billion dollars in trade on a daily basis. Effecting
our border, impeding the flow of goods and services and people across the
border will obviously be detrimental to the economies of both our countries.
Tighter border control does not address the underlying
security risks associated with the loopholes in Canada's immigration and
refugee system that are being exploited. That is not to suggest that the
problem is with Canada's willingness to accept genuine refugees and immigrants,
rather it is a legitimate and longstanding concern that the system itself fails
to guard against those who abuse the loopholes in our immigration laws and use
our country as a base for illegal activity, including terrorism.
The Liberals have deliberately merged these two
separate issues thereby preventing security interests from becoming effectively
dealt with because reasoned debate is supplanted by specious accusations of
racism. I would like to illustrate a couple of examples for the benefit of the
House.
On October 4 In the House of Commons, in a question to
the immigration minister in which an opposition member asked if the minister
would commit unequivocally to working with Ontario and any other province that
came forward to pick up the slack in the deportation of people illegally in
Canada, her response was to accuse the member of equating refugees with
criminals. She stated “It is simply wrong to broad-brush all of those who are
in Canada who have deportation orders”. That is the technique.
Another good example took place on October 1 when an
opposition member stated “We know there have been terrorists living among us.
We know that they get here illegally through our refugee system”. The member
then asked what specific steps the Prime Minister could tell us about that he
had taken to protect Canadians and indirectly to protect our
neighbours.
(1635)
The response of the minister was that not all refugee
claimants are criminals and that the member was simply
fearmongering.
In a final example, the immigration minister's first
comments following the terrorist attack was to criticize anyone who would point
out the loopholes in our immigration refugee system that was being exploited by
terrorists by characterizing them as being “anti-immigrant and anti-everybody
rhetoric”, when in fact it is the minister engaging in rhetoric.
As I have stated, elected members of parliament and our
country's own security agencies have highlighted how the system has failed.
Opposition MPs have been demanding since 1993 that loopholes in the legislation
governing entry into Canada be closed. I would like to quote from a 1996
Canadian Security Intelligence Service report which stated the following:
As other developed countries tighten
their responses to terrorism, Canada will continue to be attractive to
terrorists as a safe haven and a means of ready access to the United
States. |
The report further stated:
In Canada, the threat from
international terrorism will continue to be associated with homeland conflicts.
Many of the world's terrorist groups have a presence in Canada, where they
engage in a variety of activities in support of terrorism, including: providing
logistic support for terrorism outside Canada; developing the potential for
terrorist actions in Canada; fund-raising, advocacy, and information
dissemination; intimidating Canadian citizens in émigré communities; providing
safe haven for terrorists; arranging transit to and from other countries; and
raising money through illegal activities. |
These activities in Canada are an
obvious concern for intelligence and law enforcement officials. Insufficient
effort in either area could leave Canada open to charges of being implicated
indirectly in acts elsewhere against other states. To avoid such a possibility,
even greater cooperation with like-minded countries will be needed for the
foreseeable future. |
That is from a 1996 report.
The concern I see with the legislation is that it has
the potential, because some aspects of it are targeting our common border with
the United States, to sacrifice the free flow of trade between our two
countries instead of addressing the issues that would prevent terrorists from
reaching Canadian soil in the first place.
Seen in this light, the government's efforts continue
to be geared toward after the fact measures rather than being proactive in
combating the terrorist threat from abroad.
On Monday of this week the opposition coalition put the
following motion before the House of Commons. It stated:
That this House reaffirm its
condemnation of the terrorist attacks against our NATO ally, the United States
of America, on September 11, 2001, and affirm its support for Canada's
courageous men and women in the Canadian Forces who are responding to defend
freedom and democracy in the international military coalition against
terrorism; and |
That this House hereby order the
Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the Standing
Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs to sit jointly to hold
frequent meetings with ministers and officials of the government and the
military. |
Shamefully, in an act of outright political cowardice,
the New Democratic Party was the only party that voted against that motion and
opposed Canada's military effort in support of our allies in the war on
terrorism.
At a time when this country should be united in its
support for our men and women in uniform, the NDP has shamefully decided to
play politics with the issue by undermining our country's contribution to the
international military effort. By voting against the motion, the NDP has proven
its irrelevance and once again relegated itself to the fringe of Canadian
politics.
I would like to also point out that 80% of Canadians
support the international coalition to fight terrorism. One is either against
those of us who believe in protecting democracy and freedom or one is against
us.
(1640)
The NDP has chosen to sympathize with
terrorists.
I realize that I am running out of time so I will just
sum up with a condemnation of the NDP and of the Liberal government for
focusing--
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos):
Resuming debate. The hon. member for Brampton
Centre.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre,
Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I too would like to express my total
support for Bill C-36 and the fight against terrorism. I would also like to
take a moment to congratulate our Prime Minister for going to Halifax to bid
farewell to our soldiers. I hope when everything is said and done they will all
come back safe and sound to their families and loved ones. I also hope they
will come here one day so we can honour them in the House of
Commons.
Over the last couple of days we have had many
discussions. During one of the discussions a colleague from this side of the
House mentioned the fact that any time we have a demonstration that turns
violent it is a terrorist act. Someone else from the other side mentioned that
it is not a terrorist act but rather a free expression of will.
As far as I am concerned, I do not think we can come up
with a scientific definition of what the word terrorism means.
I will give an example. In the 1950s Nelson Mandela,
the leader of the African National Congress, was a terrorist for the white
supremacist government in South Africa. I am glad to say that he was here a
couple of years ago and will be here again to receive an honorary citizenship
for Canada.
To re-emphasize the point I made earlier, there is no
scientific definition for the word terrorism.
However, having said that, there is no justification
whatsoever for anyone to engage in terrorist acts, especially the ones that
happened on September 11 which killed over 5,000 innocent people working in
their offices.
I want to focus my next few minutes not on the bill
alone. I would like to say that to fight terrorism is like having a chair. It
needs four legs to have balance.
I think the Minister of Justice is doing a fantastic
job on the legal end of it. However what is missing in our fight against
terrorism here, and especially in the United States, is the intelligence aspect
of it.
As we all know, the Middle East is a hotbed of
international problems. In the early 1950s attempts were made in Iran to
overthrow the shah. The CIA was involved. It brought back the shah but it
failed to protect its interests in the Middle East in 1979 when the shah was
thrown out by Ayatollah Khomeini. I think we have regretted that from that time
onward to this day because we were not able to predict what was going to happen
following the shah's fall . Then we had the Iran-Iraq war.
We then had the Lebanese civil war in 1983 where 241
U.S. marines were bombed by terrorist acts. Again, the Americans were not able
to get the intelligence required to defend themselves or prevent these
terrorist acts.
In the late 1980s the U.S.S.R. fell. It was the biggest
empire in the world. Everybody was afraid. It was a powerful nation for over
1,000 years but nobody knew it was crumbling from within.
The CIA and the FBI have a $28 billion budget. If they
could not figure out what was happening in the Soviet Union for the last 50
years, then I am really concerned about what will happen in the next 50
years.
What happened on September 11 was, I think, an
intelligence failure. The U.S. knew full well that the same place had been
bombed by terrorists 10 years ago. Obviously they failed, and I am glad, but
they should have failed this time around too. The U.S. knew this thing was
coming up.
In history there are many situations that could have
been prevented if we only had good intelligence. We have failed to have
that.
The bombing of a U.S. navy ship in the south Yemen Sea
was due to an intelligence failure. The African embassy bombing two years was
also due to an intelligence failure.
We had many warnings that our intelligence system was
failing us but we never took the time to review the status of our western
intelligence.
Over the last few weeks there were quite a few
documentaries on CBC telling us about the failures of our intelligence system,
the American intelligence system and the whole western intelligence system to
prevent the attack that took place on September 11.
If I may say so, I think this discussion should focus
on improving our intelligence system so we can prevent further
attacks.
To describe what is happening now, I would describe it
as a snake. The snake's head is in Nigeria.
(1645)
The House may recall three or four years ago that the
foreign affairs committee had a delegation of Algerian parliamentarians here on
an exchange program. The people in that country had a coup d'état against the
democratically elected government. It was in the news, on TV and in newspapers
over the last couple of years. Individuals were concerned that Muslim
fundamentalists were taking power from the democratically elected government.
From that time on things have changed. All disguised fundamentalists have now
congregated in Afghanistan.
The hotbed of this conflict is of course the Middle
East. One does not have to say anything more when they say Middle East because
everyone knows what has been happening there over the last 50 years, and more
intensely over the last year or so.
I believe that by bombing Afghanistan only part of the
problem has been solved, not the whole problem. We have to go to the root of
the problem. No matter how many laws we pass in this place, there will not be a
final solution to terrorist acts.
As far as I am concerned, rule number one is
intelligence. Rule number two is more intelligence. Rule number three is even
more intelligence to fight terrorism.
(1650)
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson
and Highland Valleys, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, there are obvious basic philosophical
differences between the Liberal Party and the Canadian Alliance. The Liberals
tend to be reactive, not proactive. The legislation in front of us today should
not have been handled and developed as emergency legislation.
The Canadian Alliance and the Reform before it have
been calling on the government to recognize the shortfalls and the
shortsightedness in the funding of military, police and protective services for
years.
Having said that, this is a case where we have to pull
together for Canada. I will support Bill C-36, but I will point out some of the
things that I believe are flawed.
The Canadian Alliance put forward a motion on September
17 which called for the naming of all known international terrorist
organizations operating in Canada. We asked for a complete ban on fundraising
activities in support of terrorism and provisions for the seizure of assets
belonging to terrorists or terrorist organizations. We asked for the immediate
ratification of the international convention for the suppression of the
financing of terrorism and for the creation of specific definitions of crimes
for engaging in terrorist training activities in Canada or inciting terrorist
activities abroad from Canada.
We asked for the prompt extradition of foreign
nationals charged with acts of terrorism even if the charges were capital
offences. We asked for the detention and deportation to their country of origin
of any people illegally in Canada or failed refugee claimants who were linked
to terrorist organizations.
The legislation in front of us, which I will support,
addresses some of those issues. I do believe, however, that we have room for
improvement. The legislation does nothing to remedy the current extradition
situation resulting from the Burns and Rafay decision made by the Supreme Court
of Canada. Since this decision Canada has become a safe haven for criminals.
That is beyond denying. It has been happening for years.
It allows for consecutive sentences for some terrorist
related crimes. Life sentences, however, are exempted. This creates a 5,000 for
one price on terrorism. A person is allowed to kill 5,000 people and pay the
same penalty as if only one life was taken. That is unjust and unfair, and it
needs to be addressed.
The legislation does nothing to guarantee reliable and
long term funding for frontline people who are working against the war on
terrorism. It will be ineffective unless those frontline people are given
guaranteed resources to enforce the provisions. That means it must be addressed
through a budget and it must become a priority of the entire House, not just
the Canadian Alliance.
The legislation will raise civil liberty concerns. The
increased stability of our police and security agencies to pry into the
personal lives of Canadians will set off alarms from civil liberty agencies and
groups. Preventive arrests in investigative hearings will surely be challenged
by the charter.
I agree that it is necessary for us to take these steps
at this point in time, but I would like to see us take a very long and sober
look at putting in place a measure that would allow us to look at it again in
the near future. The minister attempted to give the House her word that things
would go well and that this would be reviewed. She said that we should not
worry about minor details. These are not minor details; they are very major
details.
For members who wonder why I have a lack of trust I
will point to a few pieces of legislation. The Income Tax Act was a temporary
measure put in place many years ago. It was to fund the war effort and then
disappear. Not only has it not disappeared. It has increasingly taken more and
more money out of the pockets of everyday Canadians. That is one reason I am
not trusting at this point in time and I want to see something
stronger.
We also had the very strong election promise from the
Liberal government to do away with the GST and it was ignored entirely after
the election.
(1655)
I am concerned that under this piece of legislation one
would be forced to testify against oneself. In the case of terrorism I am fully
supportive of that. One should be forced to testify and to give answers to
questions asked by our personnel. However there is not a case in point where
there is a timeline when this would elapse or when we would have an opportunity
to bring it back.
I do not want the legislation in front of us, which I
will support, to turn into something like the Income Tax Act or any other piece
of legislation that has never come back before the House and has lived a long
life with no sign of its demise or end.
The amendments to the Access to Information Act are
troubling. It would appear that the Liberals are using this critical time as an
opportunity to implement restrictions on access to government information by
Canadians. I hope that is untrue but that is the way I view it at this time.
As a member of parliament trying to access information
through the current channels is next to impossible. It takes forever. I have
tried to access information for my constituents. They wonder why as an MP I
have to jump more barriers than are necessary to get information. It is
something that is very important and that we need to address.
The legislation does not name any specific terrorist
groups operating in Canada. This information is readily available from CSIS and
the RCMP. When those questions were asked we were told that for reasons of
security the information could not be disclosed in the House. That is a very
difficult explanation to swallow.
I am disappointed the government has made most of its
announcements regarding terrorism at press conferences rather than at meetings
with all members of the House. There are 301 members who were elected to the
House to represent the people of Canada. We should not leave the decisions to a
small handful of 12 who sit in cabinet. It is unfair and undemocratic. It is a
practice that must stop.
Written codes of practice on the seizure and retention
of property and silent video recordings are required. Interviews of detainees
by police must be audio recorded in accordance with the code of practice.
Canadian legislation has no such safeguards.
The 170 page document has been a great deal to absorb
in a short period of time. It has been very difficult to absorb. It is not what
I would recommend as nightly reading. I have relied on my colleague from
Provencher for advice, discretion and the ability to answer questions that I am
unable to answer.
I want to make certain this is not another case where
we do not get an opportunity to openly debate legislation. We must have a say
in how this happens. We must listen to the voices of the people whom we
represent. The people in my constituency of Kamloops, Thompson and Highland
Valleys have e-mailed, written and telephoned me. Their concerns are wide
ranging but the biggest concern is the secrecy behind how all this was put
together. I have tried to explain parts of the act to them but it is difficult
for me to do so.
The government needs to be more open. We need a better
understanding of what is in front of us and for once the House needs to act as
a team. We are all on the same team. We are looking to protect Canadians, our
homeland and our neighbours.
The act limits the power to grant bail to certain
higher court judges, thus limiting instances in which bail would be given.
Canadian legislation does not close the loophole. American legislation places
extensive stress on deportation provisions. We are not doing that.
I will support the legislation. I give the government
points for trying its best to put things together, but I urge it to listen
carefully to what members on both sides of the House have to say and to put
together something that benefits all of Canada.
(1700)
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East,
Lib.):
Madam Speaker, Bill C-36 is possibly the most important
piece of legislation the House will deal with in the life of this parliament.
Therefore it needs a great deal of scrutiny from both sides of the
House.
All Canadians have been victimized by those terrorists.
Some Canadians have special burdens because of their origins, but we should
make no mistake that we are all victims of September 11.
Prior to September 11 there was no way that Bill C-36
would ever have seen the light of day. No lawyer in the justice department or
indeed no minister of justice would ever have certified that such a bill would
meet charter requirements. No one with even a passing familiarity with the
charter would have countenanced such an encroachment on the fundamental rights
and freedoms of Canadians. However that was then and this is now.
Watching television last night I was struck by the
eagerness of some Canadians to trade their rights and freedoms for security. It
was both surprising and disheartening to me to hear caller after caller be
prepared to give the government and parliament a blank cheque. It was also
disheartening to hear Canadians make wild and outrageous links between
immigrants, refugees and security. When people are afraid they say things that
they would never otherwise say. They think things that they would never
otherwise think, and they do things that they would never otherwise do.
It will be a test of our nation that has a reputation
for stability and tolerance to deal with these fears. Otherwise the terrorists
win. They win because neighbours turn on neighbours. Instead of reaching out we
turn inward. We walk away from our rights for which previous generations have
fought and died. The challenge is not to let terrorism win and to break this
cycle of victimization where victims in turn victimize. I am hopeful that the
justice committee will carefully scrutinize the bill.
I would like to look at one section of the bill that
deals with the listing of terrorists. At the risk of simplifying, a group is a
terrorist group because we say it is a terrorist group. The director of CSIS
would prepare a list of terrorist groups. He would hand it to the solicitor
general who in turn would share it with his cabinet colleagues. The cabinet
would gazette an organization and it is now a terrorist
organization.
I know that I am telescoping clause 85, but it is not
that much fancier than that process. I appreciate the solicitor general must
have reasonable grounds, but what are reasonable grounds?
Are reasonable grounds that which is beyond a
reasonable doubt, as one would have in a criminal court of law? Are reasonable
grounds evidence that is on the balance of probabilities such as one would have
in a civil setting? Will evidence that would be otherwise inadmissible be
accepted as evidence? Will we be operating on speculation, rumour, gossip,
hearsay and ambiguities?
(1705)
The truth of the matter, as I see it, is that
reasonable grounds would be whatever the CSIS director thinks are reasonable
grounds. May I remind members what was unthinkable prior to September 11 will
become reasonable grounds after September 11. God forbid that there should be
any other incident, because what we think are reasonable grounds today will be
further diluted.
Or will the reasonable grounds be whatever the CIA or
the British intelligence service MI5 tells us are reasonable grounds? Will we
merely photocopy the lists of other intelligence services and hope that they
did a thorough job? What independent analysis will we apply to reasonable
grounds to determine whether in fact these lists have some basis in
law?
It is trite but true that intelligence gathering is far
from precise. It relies on all kinds of sources, some of which clearly are not
reliable, some of which leave a lot to conjecture, in order to conclude that an
organization, an entity or a person is a terrorist. This is not a science; some
would even say it is not an art.
I am perfectly prepared to concede that the top 10
organizations the solicitor general puts forward for his cabinet colleagues
will be fairly easy to identify. Even in this room there will be virtual
unanimity among colleagues that the top 10 would in fact be terrorist
organizations.
Reasonable people might argue quite vigorously among
themselves about the next 10 organizations that are on the list. There may well
be honestly held differences in views as to which should or should not be on
the list. And what about the 10 after that? There may well be wild variations
of opinion, but because the director of CSIS says there are reasonable grounds
and the solicitor general believes there are reasonable grounds, then they are
terrorist organizations and they will be gazetted.
If they are labelled, what are they going to do? The 10
top will not care. I do not expect that Mr. bin Laden is going to be overly
fussed about being labelled a terrorist in Canada. The next 10 may be upset and
they may or may not do something. The last group however may be very upset. Its
members may feel that their rights to carry on an activity which they perceive
to be either charitable or political has been infringed and there may be some
basis for their concerns.
The bill does provide for some form of redress. The
solicitor general must notify the entity within 60 days of being gazetted. As I
said, it is not likely that Mr. bin Laden's group is going to be overly upset,
nor is the PLO or the Hamas or any of those other fine and noble organizations
which we read about in the newspaper. But there are going to be groups that are
upset and the likelihood is that by the labelling and gazetting, 98% of the
damage will have already been done. They cannot get back their reputation once
they have lost it.
After the 60 day notice, a judge will convene a
hearing. The judge will read the real evidence and the judge will hear the real
evidence from a representative of the crown. Neither he nor the solicitor
general has to tell them about the evidence. They only have to give a summary
of the evidence. By the time the judge decides that the group should not have
been gazetted, it will be all over for that entity. The organization will be in
ruins, its reputation destroyed and its members despised by their
neighbours.
I appreciate that there are needs for confidentiality.
These are extraordinary times and people do feel insecure, but once something
like this happens, we can never get it back.
(1710)
As I say, I am not overly worried about the bin Ladens
of this world. I am worried about the entities which would not be regarded as
anything other than a collection of cranks or nuts other than in these times,
let alone that they were not given an opportunity for a full and fair defence.
The bill deserves a lot of scrutiny by the House.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I say with hesitation that I will be
supporting Bill C-36.
I am going to go back in history a little to the period
1993 to 1995. When I first came to the House, I said then what I say today,
that the foremost responsibility of any government is the safety and well-being
of its legal law-abiding citizens. Today I listen to some of the talk on both
sides of the House. I can well remember standing in the House and warning about
the flaws in our immigration policy, the flaws in our refugee system and how it
had to be tightened up. I can well remember being called a racist. I can well
remember being called a bigot. I certainly can well remember being called a
fearmonger for stating exactly what happened.
A member asks what has changed now. A Liberal member
still has the audacity and stupidity to ask that question. It is more rhetoric
from a jackass, pure and simple. September 11 changed the minds of those on
that side of the House too yet we still hear the same thing from them. It is
unbelievable. They will say anything to try and change what they never
addressed in the first place. They were well warned, not only by us but by
their organizations. CSIS warned them. The RCMP warned them. We read from the
reports and they still never accepted it. They laughed them off. It was a joke.
Well it is no longer a joke.
Today I hear the talk, the worry and the concern about
human rights. It is a legitimate concern but is it concern about human rights
or should it be about human lives? I for one would sooner have the RCMP
rounding up and detaining suspected terrorists than rounding up and taking the
families of victims of terrorists to the morgues. I think the families,
relatives and friends of the people who died on September 11 would have the
same feelings. We do not even have to ask. That is the feeling.
Why do I have concerns? We know about Assam Raheem. We
have stood in the House and asked the questions about Raheem. The minister
stood and said that they knew about it, that they worked hand in hand with the
American intelligence services and police forces to capture this man, that the
Canadian government was well aware this man came into Canada with a false
French passport. They say they were following his activities, tracking him and
helping the RCMP so they must have known this man was building a bomb in the
city of Vancouver. The minister was watching him. That is what was said in the
House.
They know then that he also loaded this unstable bomb
into the trunk of a car, drove past some of our schools and hospitals, drove
past the public and drove onto one of our ferries that was loaded with people.
He was allowed to transport the bomb down to the States. The minister knew what
he was doing. Again they are just trying to cover their mistakes. If they did
know about this and allowed a terrorist to build a bomb in the city of
Vancouver and transport it on our highway system, they should be held
accountable. That is why I have concerns.
(1715)
I have grave concerns about what they will do with Bill
C-36. When it goes to committee will some of the recommendations and concerns
put forward not only by this party but by other parties in the House be heard?
Will the government finally listen and implement them?
The concerns we are addressing here are not our
individual concerns. They are the concerns of our constituents. In my
constituency a great number of people who voted for me and who are members in
our party are first and second generation immigrants. They left their countries
because of the terrorist acts that go on there. They come to us with their
problems and the threats they receive from some of these organizations. Yet
when we bring them up in the House, the government turns a deaf ear. It tries
to label us. I find that disgusting.
They say we should all work together on this and I
agree. But some of us have long memories. Some of us well remember what was
said to us when we brought these issues before the House. Some of us well
remember what was said during the election campaign. I remember what the
minister of immigration said. Has there ever been an apology? No.
I hear concerns now that we cannot harmonize with the
Americans because we are likely to lose part of our identity, that the
Americans would want to control our immigration if we were to harmonize with
them. I hear concerns not only from the government side but from other members
in the House. I want to remind people that the United States of America was
built on immigration, just as our country was. Legal law-abiding immigrants
came to Canada but they also went to the United States and made that a great
nation, the same way they helped to make Canada a great nation. I find those
questions very distasteful.
Members must remember what the great country of France
sent to the United States of America: the Statue of Liberty. There are words on
the Statue of Liberty that welcome all immigrants to that country. We welcome
immigrants too and proudly so. But does that mean we should not have concerns?
Does that mean we should not tighten up the system? It does not. We have been
reminded of that in an extreme way.
Yes, we will work with the government. However no one
should think for one minute that the memory of some of the things that were
said is ever going to go away, things that were said about individual members
on this side of the House and also about our party. This is not the time. For
the right of law-abiding citizens of this country it is time we did the right
thing. We cannot hesitate. We have to get rid of that idea. If members think
bin Laden is the only terrorist in the world, I have news for them. There are a
lot more out there who are just as dangerous.
It is time we started to crack down. It is time for the
public to demand the House to have an open and honest debate on capital
punishment with regard to some of these issues. It is time to have a debate on
deportation issues. We still do not deport people from Canada for murders they
committed in another country. I do not understand that. We want other countries
to respect our laws, why should we not respect theirs?
(1720)
Hon. Stephen Owen (Vancouver Quadra,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to support Bill C-36
this evening. I add my voice to the many voices from all sides and corners of
the House that have spoken of the importance of the bill which is meant to
address incredibly foundational issues touching our democracy at this
time.
I will talk a bit about the Canadian response, the
challenge of facing terror in a democracy, the measured response the bill
presents and the areas of review we will be entering into in the House and in
committee.
The Canadian response to the evil of September 11 has
been widespread and has unified us as a country although we have heard
different expressions of how we should respond. I and my constituents in
Vancouver Quadra join all Canadians in expressing our horror and deep felt
sympathy for the families of the victims.
Our response, starting with the some 30,000 passengers
diverted from American flights to Canada on September 11, has been
extraordinary. That has been recognized across the United States and around the
world. Canadians did not know at the time whether the planes harboured
terrorists, had bombs on board or were a threat to Canada but we willingly
opened our skies and airports to take those people in.
On September 14, 100,000 Canadians met on Parliament
Hill to express their deep concern and sadness over the evil event. Within a
day of the horror of September 11, ministers across a whole range of
departments were working to add new resources and expedite and tighten up
security measures to deal with the new reality.
In the House we have had more than 60 hours of debate
on various aspects of the terror and our response to it. In all the debate
there has been a common cause: to ensure we reach a proper balance in our
democracy between security and freedom in the face of this type of terror. That
is the challenge in front of us. It is a challenge Bill C-36 tries to
address.
The balance is a delicate one. There can be no
democracy without security. There can be no freedom without security. If we
have only security we are imprisoned. There can be no security unless we have
freedom, otherwise we have anarchy. This delicate balance must respect the
reality of the times, and the times have changed for us all as the reality of
September 11 has struck home.
It is the section 1 limits of the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms that we must turn our attention to in Bill C-36. Our rights
and freedoms are subject to “such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be
demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”. We must always keep
that limitation in mind as we measure our response.
Bill C-36 is complementary to a whole range of other
initiatives and pieces of legislation. It would complement and add to the
criminal code which covers the whole range of offences a terrorist might
commit. However it specifically focuses on terrorism. It would supplement and
build on the initiatives set out in Bill C-24, the organized crime legislation
passed by the House in the spring.
Bill C-36 would add breadth, strength and definition to
the provisions of the United Nations Act which allows us by regulation to
implement United Nations security council resolutions. It would also build on
the Immigration Act and give more definition to the provisions of Bill C-11 on
immigration.
(1725)
In terms of our international responsibilities and our
responsibilities to our neighbours in the United States, Bill C-36 would allow
us to ratify and implement the last two international conventions on terrorism:
the international convention for the suppression of terrorist bombings and the
international convention for the suppression of terrorist financing. This would
bring us into the position of having ratified and implemented all 12 UN
conventions on terrorism. That is immensely important.
It is also important that Bill C-36 would build on the
hate propaganda provisions of the criminal code. It would make hate propaganda
a crime and allow it to be deleted from public Internet sites.
Bill C-36 would build on the money laundering and
proceeds of crime legislation we have in place to deal with criminal
organizations. This legislation deals mainly with enterprise crime but could
clearly be focused on terrorist organizations.
Bill C-36 is a measured response and an immensely
important part of the democratic exercise we are involved in. Its balance is
shown by a whole range of ministerial responsibilities. We would need the
permission of the attorney general before initiating the investigative
hearings, the preventive arrest provisions or the Canada Evidence Act
certification which would allow the CSE to intercept communications which are
targeted at foreign sources but enter Canadian airwaves.
The listing provision would need the recommendation of
the solicitor general and the approval of cabinet. It would need to be reviewed
every two years and could be challenged by the courts in judicial
review.
As well, judicial oversight is woven into the whole
bill. Investigative hearings reviewing the listing and preventive arrest
provisions within 24 hours of being brought before a judge would provide
effective judicial oversight.
Most important, the legislation comes out of the
collective wisdom of the House as expressed over the last 30 days. There are
issues that are still open for serious debate, and the Prime Minister and
Minister of Justice have indicated their intention and desire that the Standing
Committee on Justice and Human Rights review these concerns in detail and
provide further advice.
These will touch in particular on the important new
provisions regarding preventive arrest, investigative hearings, the whole
process of listing and delisting, parliamentary review, and the definition of
terror. This is the first time terror has been defined and it is an immensely
important centerpiece of the legislation.
It has been suggested in the House that some of the
provisions, particularly the new ones, be made sunset clauses. The Standing
Committee on Justice and Human Rights will be considering ways in which the
legislation can be properly tracked over the next short period of time to
consider whether it is achieving its objective, whether there are unintended
consequences or whether there should be amendments.
I am confident in supporting Bill C-36 that it responds
to the common objective and common cause of every member of the House: to deal
with the horror and evil of terrorism in our democracy in a way that finds the
proper balance between security and freedom.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia--Matane,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, since September 11, all governments on
this planet have been faced with a problem that is, if not entirely new, of a
scope never before known.
All countries are today faced with new terrorist
threats, which are creating something akin to panic in the population at large.
Anthrax and other types of alerts are keeping emergency services constantly in
response mode. Without wishing to be a prophet of doom, I feel we are far from
seeing the end of this.
The danger we face--over and above the attacks or, in
certain cases, the supposed attacks--is the gradual paralysis of the economy,
of democratic institutions, and of the way we live within society.
All heads of state without exception--at least all
those we have heard from--are calling upon us daily to continue to live our
lives as normally as possible, as otherwise the terrorists will have
accomplished their objective.
Our governments have, as far as they are able, tried to
react so as to reassure their population. We are told this over and over. We
are told that all steps have been taken to ensure public safety. Nevertheless,
people everywhere are showing how insecure they are feeling. They are still
extremely fearful.
The Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
has just introduced Bill C-36, which would, as its title indicates, amend the
criminal code, the Official Secrets Act, the Canada Evidence Act, the Proceeds
of Crime (Money Laundering) Act and other acts. This is known by the short
title of the anti-terrorism act.
We agree with this bill in principle. We agree that
terrorism must be fought against and also that we have to equip ourselves with
the means to do so, and consequently must amend legislation so that we can do a
better job of it.
We humbly submit, however, that we need to avoid
falling into the trap that lies before us, that is to act too hastily, to pass
new legislation which would far exceed its objective and would open the door to
all manner of abuses.
Periods such as the current one can easily lead to
excesses. Canada's recent history is not exempt from such abuse. Remember what
happened during the second world war. Some serious abuse took place in the past
in spite of the fact that we lived in a democracy. Citizens were stripped of
their rights, even though they had not committed any crime.
Notwithstanding the current situation, we want to
maintain our fundamental rights. We want to remain free. We do not want our
democracy to be tarnished again by abuse. We must be cautious and take the time
necessary to examine all the repercussions that could result from the passage
of Bill C-36.
The September 11 terrorist attacks and the continuing
threats at present have reached an extraordinary level and created an
extraordinary context. Bill C-36 must therefore be an extraordinary piece of
legislation to deal with an extraordinary situation.
Should the terrorist threat diminish, several of the
measures being considered through Bill C-36 would become unacceptable and the
balance between security and freedom would have to be readjusted.
(1730)
In a democracy, this is always a fragile balance. We
must not forget that. This is why the Bloc Quebecois is asking the government
to include a sunset clause whereby certain provisions of the bill would no
longer be in effect after three years, unless of course the House decided
otherwise at that time and the need to extend such provisions was demonstrated.
We are also asking that this act be reviewed on a yearly basis.
There are other aspects of Bill C-36, the
anti-terrorism act, that raise concerns. It seems to us that the definition of
a terrorist act goes too far. It is much too broad and could lead to abuse
against groups or individuals who have no connection with terrorism.
We had a very good example of this in the House today
when it was suggested that certain groups of protesters at the Quebec summit be
deemed to have committed terrorist acts.
The bill would enable the attorney general to withhold
information by not applying the Access to Information Act, this without an
evaluation by the privacy commissioner and without a judicial
review.
This means that the attorney general, or Minister of
Justice, is giving herself the authority to withhold information from the
public, to remove elements of information, this without any consultation with
the information commissioner.
Another element which appears to carry some risk and
which deserves to be studied further is that the Minister of National Defence
could intercept international communications simply by making a written request
to the Communications Security Establishment.
This means that the Minister of National Defence could
claim the power to intercept international communications between two groups,
individuals or businesses simply by asking the Communications Security
Establishment in writing.
A number of other questions could be raised and some of
them already have been raised by the media. Doubts have arisen.
Hopefully the bill will be carefully examined before
being passed. As elected representatives, it is our duty to ensure that the
bill attains the objective for which it was created. As elected
representatives, it is our duty to ensure that the bill does not go too far and
violate the freedoms of the citizens who elected us.
In my remarks, I also wanted to remind members that the
best way to fight terrorism is by preventing it at the source. As a democracy
and as a society, we must ask ourselves what the real issues are and try to
come up with satisfactory solutions to them.
It is by fighting poverty and misery, as we have
repeatedly said, that we will best succeed in changing things. It is by
educating and teaching that we will best be able to fight blindness and loosen
the grip that dictators have on poorly educated populations. It is by sharing
knowledge and resources that we will best succeed in creating conditions that
will prevent terrorist groups from springing up. It is also, and most
importantly, by restoring assistance to developing countries that we can best
intervene. It is a long term process that we must undertake
immediately.
Military strikes are not enough to eradicate terrorism.
Nor is tough legislation. These are short term measures. What is needed is a
new world order where human beings are held in greater value.
(1735)
[English]
Mr. Jim Karygiannis
(Scarborough—Agincourt, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today because we have been hearing
speaker after speaker constantly fearmongering. They are trying to associate
refugees with terrorists.
I represent a riding which is the most ethnically
diverse riding in Canada. One of the communities that is situated in my riding
is the Canadian Arab Federation. I would like members to examine the positive
things they are doing, like daycare, assistance to new immigrants and enriching
our Canadian heritage. They are feeling the heat at this point. There are those
who want to associate the Arabs with terrorists. Comments such as a person is
an Arab terrorist or a person is a Palestinian terrorist have been brought to
my attention. This is not acceptable, not welcomed and should be fought and
eradicated by all of us.
Canadians of Arab descent are very sensitive to this
issue as well as to the Palestinian issue. It is time to take the initiative
with the Palestinian issue. The issue is one that has been in the forefront for
many decades. We need to address the Palestinian issue, not only with talks but
with peaceful and just solutions.
We just sent our men and women off to war. God be with
them and return them home safe. The legislation before us is very important. I
am asking all colleagues to fully support it and examine it closely. I am also
asking all colleagues to support the conversation on Palestine, and I know our
Prime Minister, being the oldest statesmen, will take the lead in
this.
PRIVATE MEMBER'S BUSINESS
[Private Members' Business]
* * *
(1740)
[Translation]
Food and Drugs Act
The House resumed from October 16 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-287, an act to amend the
Food and Drugs Act (genetically modified food), be read the second
time and referred to a committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair):
Pursuant to order made Tuesday, October 16, 2001, the
House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the motion at
second reading stage of Bill C-287 under private members' business.
Call in the members.
* * *
(1815)
[English]
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 151)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Alcock
Assadourian
Bachand
(Richmond--Arthabaska)
Bagnell
Bakopanos
Bélanger
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bigras
Blaikie
Bourgeois
Brien
Bulte
Caccia
Cannis
Cardin
Carignan
Carroll
Casey
Chamberlain
Clark
Comartin
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Davies
Desjarlais
Desrochers
Doyle
Duceppe
Elley
Farrah
Folco
Forseth
Gagnon (Québec)
Gagnon (Champlain)
Gauthier
Girard-Bujold
Godfrey
Gouk
Grey (Edmonton North)
Guay
Guimond
Hearn
Herron
Hinton
Ianno
Jackson
Jennings
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keddy (South Shore)
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Laliberte
Lalonde
Lanctôt
Leung
Lincoln
Lunney (Nanaimo--Alberni)
MacKay
(Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough)
Marceau
Martin (Esquimalt--Juan de
Fuca)
Martin (Winnipeg Centre)
McNally
Meredith
Mills (Toronto--Danforth)
Owen
Paquette
Peric
Perron
Plamondon
Price
Proctor
Richardson
Robinson
Roy
Sauvageau
Scott
St-Hilaire
Stinson
Szabo
Telegdi
Thibeault (Saint-Lambert)
Tremblay
(Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la
Mitis)
Volpe
Wappel
Wasylycia-Leis
Wilfert
Total: 91
|
NAYS
Members
Anders
Anderson (Cypress
Hills--Grasslands)
Anderson (Victoria)
Augustine
Bailey
Beaumier
Benoit
Bertrand
Binet
Blondin-Andrew
Bonin
Borotsik
Boudria
Breitkreuz
Bryden
Burton
Calder
Caplan
Castonguay
Catterall
Cauchon
Coderre
Copps
Cullen
Cuzner
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dion
Drouin
Duncan
Duplain
Easter
Epp
Eyking
Finlay
Fitzpatrick
Fontana
Gagliano
Gallaway
Grose
Harvard
Harvey
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George--Peace
River)
Hilstrom
Hubbard
Johnston
Karetak-Lindell
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Keyes
Kilgour (Edmonton
Southeast)
Lastewka
LeBlanc
Lee
Longfield
MacAulay
Macklin
Mahoney
Malhi
Manley
Marcil
Mark
Matthews
McCallum
McCormick
McGuire
McKay (Scarborough East)
McLellan
McTeague
Merrifield
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Moore
Myers
Nault
Neville
Normand
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London--Fanshawe)
O'Reilly
Pallister
Pankiw
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Penson
Peterson
Pickard (Chatham--Kent
Essex)
Pillitteri
Proulx
Provenzano
Rajotte
Reed (Halton)
Reid (Lanark--Carleton)
Reynolds
Ritz
Savoy
Scherrer
Serré
Sgro
Shepherd
Skelton
Solberg
Sorenson
Speller
Spencer
St-Jacques
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart
Strahl
Thompson (New Brunswick
Southwest)
Thompson (Wild Rose)
Tirabassi
Tobin
Toews
Tonks
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Vellacott
Whelan
White (North Vancouver)
Yelich
Total: 126
|
PAIRED
Members
Bachand (Saint-Jean)
Bennett
Bevilacqua
Charbonneau
Discepola
Dubé
Fournier
Gagnon (Québec)
Goodale
Guarnieri
Loubier
Pettigrew
Picard (Drummond)
Redman
Rocheleau
Venne
Total: 16
|
|
Motion
negatived
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair):
I declare the motion lost.
[Translation]
It being 6.17 p.m., the House will now proceed to
consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order
paper.
* * *
[English]
Criminal Code
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC/DR)
moved that Bill C-269, an act to amend the
Criminal Code and the Firearms Act (exemption of long guns from
registration), be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to have an
opportunity to maintain a very strong commitment I made to the constituents of
my riding of Fundy--Royal and, I might add, to an issue that resonates very
much throughout rural Canada with regard to a piece of legislation introduced
by the government that may be very noble in intent in terms of deterring the
criminal use of firearms, but which has become one of the largest fiscal
boondoggles we have had in Canadian history. The bill I am referring to is
commonly known throughout the country as Bill C-68.
Here is what we are advocating. We all categorically
agree that any modern society needs to have provisions in place with respect to
the handling of firearms so that individuals who acquire them are properly
trained in their use. We need to have provisions in place whereby firearms are
stored under lock and key in a place separate from the ammunition. The
ammunition should be in one compartment and the firearm itself in another one
to avoid any kind of accidental harm.
Members may be familiar with the fact that all of the
provisions I have outlined were in what was termed to be one of the most
progressive pieces of firearm legislation in the industrialized world, that is,
this country's legislation formerly known as Bill C-17, introduced by the
Progressive Conservative government. It never had a chance to be measured as to
the degree of success it could actually entail.
The bill I have put forward does this. All the safe
handling provisions, all the acquisition certificates that Bill C-68 and its
predecessor Bill C-17 had and all the issues from a safety perspective are
still in place, with the exception that it does not call for the registration
of long guns such as rifles and shotguns which are utilized throughout Canada
by deer hunters, duck hunters and farmers. We know that registering long guns
belonging to deer hunters, duck hunters and farmers will not deter the criminal
use of firearms. In fact, I might add that it is an arbitrary tax on those
individuals. What we want to do is deter the criminal use of firearms.
The bill is a surgical strike on Bill C-68, keeping the
good elements contained in it but extracting the most divisive element. Those
weapons or firearms that are not restricted or prohibited, essentially long
guns such as shotguns and rifles which are used by deer hunters, duck hunters
and farmers, are the only firearms that do not need to be registered in a
mandatory fashion. That is it.
In our modern society in this great nation hand guns
have been registered since the 1930s. We should never touch that issue. However
what I am talking about is--
Mr. Peter MacKay: Uncle Henry's
rifle.
Mr. John Herron: The hon. member for
Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough refers to Uncle Henry's rifle. I am not sure he
actually does have an Uncle Henry, but these shotguns and rifles are
essentially tools that a farmer may use for the protection of his livestock and
are kept under lock and key.
My party has always resisted the long gun registry
because it simply does not work and it targets the wrong group. This bill is
what we would rather have. We know that the minister of justice of the day said
that the cost of implementing the registry would be at most a mere $85 million.
The member for Edmonton North has fought for this legislation tooth and nail
since she became a member of parliament.
(1820)
Let us just say that it was a noble intent, it was the
right thing to do. We disagree with it. Even if it were, we now know the price
tag is well above $400 million. We know that there are very prudent estimates
that when this thing is finally settled it will cost over $800 million to
actually implement.
The point that I want to make is we could use those
dollars toward a truly safer street agenda, including more money for the RCMP
for overtime, for personnel and for new technologies to fight cyber crime. In
the context of the world events which have taken place since September 11,
there is the very real issue of putting those added resources toward augmenting
the budget of the RCMP or even CSIS to help them fight biker gangs and
terrorist cells, as opposed to arbitrarily taxing deer hunters, duck hunters
and farmers. It just makes a lot of sense.
I am arguing our position from a purely economic
perspective in this regard. Even if it was a noble intent, we now know that not
only was it misguided and ill-advised but it has become one of the most
comprehensive and expensive boondoggles that the federal government has ever
had throughout Canadian history.
We are trying to use this private member's bill,
although it is non-votable, to help educate the public to the fact that any
reasonable parliamentarian is not against gun control or having more stringent
provisions to deter accidental harm from firearms. We want to ensure that we
have a mandatory additional penalty in place for any criminal act committed
with the use of a firearm. These are the kind of things that the public wants
us to do. They want us to deter the criminal use of firearms.
If we want to make our streets safer, why do we not use
that $800 million? We still have about $400 million that we can save to achieve
a truly safer street agenda. That is why I moved Bill C-269. I made a
commitment to the constituents in my riding of Fundy--Royal that at the very
least I would do my best to keep the issue alive. That is what I am trying to
do with respect to this issue. Maybe that says something to accountability.
I know the member from Cypress Hills--Grasslands has
been steadfast in his opposition against this arbitrary registry. I applaud him
for his efforts. This is an issue that transcends many party lines. It really
is a split on rural Canada versus urban Canada. However even urban Canadians
are now saying that when they fought this back in the 1997 election, they
thought it was the right thing to do. Now that the price tag is $400 million
and it might even get to as high as $800 million, they are saying that perhaps
we were right back in 1997, that it was a bad idea and that we were
concentrating on the wrong element of society.
Let us target our energies toward criminals. Give the
RCMP and our law enforcement officers a tool kit to fight crime. We should take
the issue and weigh it on one hand, then on the other. Are we concerned with
terrorist cells and having the resources from a security perspective with
respect to the RCMP to actually flush those folks out? Are we concerned about
organized crime? Instead of taxing deer hunters, duck hunters and farmers, why
do we not give the tool kits to the RCMP to fight terrorist cells and biker
gangs?
We know that long guns principally are not the weapons
of crime in an urban context. Therefore, we are really targeting the wrong
group.
It may be a noble intent, but all of the good that we
are trying to get out of Bill C-269, I can advocate was already in place with
respect to Bill C-17. That would have been a better way to go as opposed to
using this useless, cumbersome long gun registry. There are a lot of
superlatives being added by my friends and colleagues who join me in their
opposition to Bill C-68 and in support of my private member's bill, Bill
C-269.
(1825)
It is not even a cash cow for the government. It is so
bureaucratic and so expensive that it is not even paying for itself. Any other
reasonable government would have actually cut its losses long ago.
I ask all members to reflect on this particular issue
and then, as time goes by, find some way to keep the good and the noble intent
that might have been in place in Bill C-68 and ditch the long gun registry,
which, at its worst, is an attack on rural attack and clearly is an attack on
the legitimate long gun owners of rifles, rifles that are used by deer hunters,
duck hunters and farmers.
I want to thank my colleagues for their encouragement
and contribution throughout my remarks. If I was ever at a loss for words
throughout my speech, there was no shortage of assistance from my friends and
colleagues. I want to thank them for their support.
Hon. Stephen Owen (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-269, an act to
amend part III of the criminal code and the Firearms Act, introduced by the
hon. member for Fundy Royal.
The bill's proposed amendments to the Firearms Act
would exempt all non-restricted rifles and shotguns from registration. The
requirements to register restricted and prohibited firearms would remain
unchanged, as we have heard. The proposed amendments to part III of the
criminal code would exempt the non-restricted rifles and shotguns from offence
provisions that deal with possession of a firearm without a registration
certificate.
The amendments proposed in Bill C-269 are inconsistent
with the goals and aims of the Firearms Act. This act is a very important
public safety initiative. It requires the licensing of firearm owners in Canada
and the registration of firearms in Canada by the end of 2002.
The bill's proposed amendments would negate the most
innovative part of the registration phase of the Canadian firearms program,
which is very important to the public safety of Canadians. The requirement to
register prohibited and restricted firearms has been in force for decades. It
is the registration of non-restricted rifles and shotguns that the Firearms
Act, passed in 1995, initiated that is its most innovative feature.
The Minister of Justice cannot support the changes to
the legislation that would challenge this contribution to public safety. She
cannot condone amendments that would reduce in any way individual
responsibility and accountability among firearms owners.
Rifles and shotguns are the most numerous and easily
acquired types of firearms in Canada. They are also the types of firearms most
often recovered from crime scenes. Over 40% of women killed by their husbands
are shot. Most of these women, 78%, are shot with legally owned firearms,
usually rifles and shotguns.
Registration links owners to their firearms. This
accountability for registered firearms also increases the likelihood of
compliance with safe storage and handling practices. It encourages owners to be
more careful when they loan firearms and to tell police when firearms are
stolen. Excluding rifles and shotguns from registration would remove the vast
majority of guns in Canada from this increased accountability.
Registration of non-restricted rifles and shotguns
provides police with a new tool to investigate and prosecute firearm related
crime involving firearms. Registration will assist in deterring illegal sales
of firearms in Canada as all firearms are registered to new owners at the point
of sale. Registered firearms cannot easily be given or sold to an unlicensed
individual as they can be traced back to the original owner.
Registration is also an important link in the process
of keeping firearms from people who pose a threat to public safety. The
transfer of ownership of a firearm initiates a background check of the person
buying a gun, whether it be a pistol, rifle or shotgun.
Registration is also important to curbing illicit trade
and smuggling in firearms. Registration also allows firearms to be traced and
tracing can reveal the paths and sources that smugglers use. Such information
is essential to finding and stopping the illegal flow of firearms into and out
of Canada.
Canada has important obligations in the area of
countering firearm trafficking and preventing firearms from going into the
black market. In fact this summer Canada joined several countries in signing a
firearms protocol toward that end, at a UN small arm's conference.
The Firearms Act is essential to public safety and the
registration of rifles and shotguns is a major part of the Canadian firearms
program. The Firearms Act, including its registration component, is supported
by more than 350 public health, domestic violence, police and community
organizations and numerous polls done over the past years show it has the
support of more than 70% of the Canadian public. The law enforcement community
supports the firearms program as a valuable tool in reducing the number of
crimes involving firearms and assisting police in investigating and solving
crimes involving firearms.
Firearms owners will see benefits too. Stolen firearms
that are registered can be returned to their lawful owners. Registered firearms
of sentimental or antique value can be more easily passed on through
inheritance and registration papers are proof for use in insurance purposes.
The firearms program is a success in terms of public safety.
(1830)
For these reasons the Minister of Justice does not
support the bill and the proposed amendments to part III of the criminal code
and the Firearms Act.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I have quite a bit to say and I will go
through my points quite quickly.
I would like to compliment the hon. member for Fundy
Royal for bringing the bill forward. While it does not meet our party's policy
to repeal and replace Bill C-68, it is a step in the right direction.
Consequently, our party supports the hon. member's bill.
If even one argument given by the Liberals in the
speech that was just delivered before mine were true we might support it, but
not one of those arguments is valid or working.
While the gun registry is likely the most costly and
useless part of Bill C-68, it is hardly the most objectionable. Bill C-68
trampled fundamental property rights. Bill C-68 breached the privacy rights of
at least 3.5 million Canadians without their knowledge. Bill C-68 placed in
jeopardy our charter rights to be secure against unreasonable search and
seizure. Bill C-68 eliminated our right to remain silent. Bill C-68 reversed
the onus of proof, thereby eliminating our rights to be presumed innocent until
proven guilty. It infringes on the treaty rights of aboriginal people. It
intrudes unnecessarily into the exclusive constitutional jurisdiction of the
provinces over property and civil rights, health, safety and
education.
Those are just a few of the more objectionable contents
of Bill C-68 and the reasons why the whole thing should be scrapped and why we
need to sit down with the provinces and responsible firearms' owners and design
a system of gun control that will be effective.
On August 29 the privacy commissioner reported a fact
that should have embarrassed the government. The media should have jumped on it
but they did not. Most provinces and territories have opted out of the
administration of the firearms program than have opted in.
On page 11 of his report the privacy commissioner
stated, and I quote:
There are 6 opt-in provinces that
administer the Firearms Program themselves and 7 opt-out provinces and
territories where the Federal Government administers the Program. |
So much for the idea of co-operative federalism under
this government.
The new B.C. government has expressed its distaste for
the gun registry and just last week I heard rumours that it will seriously
consider opting out of the administration of the gun registry component of Bill
C-68.
If B.C. goes there would be eight provinces and
territories that already have opted out. They are trying to send a message to
the federal government. Here is quote to show why it must be replaced and
repealed in its entirety.
On June 13, 1995, the then leader of the Reform Party
stated, and I quote:
I therefore submit in conclusion that
Bill C-68, if passed into law, will not be a good law. It will be a bad law, a
blight on the legislative record of the government, a law that fails the three
great tests of constitutionality, of effectiveness and of democratic consent of
the governed. What should be the fate of a bad law? It should be repealed,
which is precisely what a Reform government will do when it eventually replaces
this government. |
Six years later, with more than half a billion dollars
wasted and a bloated bureaucracy of 1,800 people, I can say that Bill C-68
still fails the three tests of constitutionality, of effectiveness and of
democratic consent of the government. I would like to give, as quickly as
possible, 10 reasons why we should repeal it right now.
First, it has already cost at least one life. The
Liberals defend their soon to be billion dollar boondoggle by saying that if
the gun registry saves one life it will be worth it.
On March 15, 2000, a man in Nain, Newfoundland, who was
prohibited from owning a firearm, went to the RCMP, picked up the rifle they
had been storing for him and has been charged with killing a 15 year old boy.
The aboriginal exemptions and adaptations in Bill C-68 likely forced the RCMP
to give the man his murder weapon.
Second, Bill C-68 costs are at least six times higher
than promised. According to access to information requests, Bill C-68 has cost
more than $500 million and is not even fully implemented yet.
In 1995 the justice minister promised it would only
cost $85 million. The Liberals have resorted to using cabinet secrecy to hide
the gun registry budgets and economic impact reports from the public, and I
still cannot get that information.
(1835)
Third, Bill C-68 is opposed by the majority of
provinces and territories. In 1995 the Liberals rammed Bill C-68 through
parliament and down the throats of the provinces. In February 2000 six
provinces and two territories challenged the constitutionality of the
legislation in the supreme court.
Fourth, Bill C-68 has increased black market gun sales.
The justice minister's own group on firearms warned her that Bill C-68 created
so much red tape trying to regulate legal gun sales that black market gun sales
were on the increase.
Fifth, Bill C-68 is opposed by frontline police
officers. Every survey ever taken by the police shows that between 76% and 91%
of frontline police officers oppose Bill C-68. According to police sources Bill
C-68 alienates honest citizens and diminishes respect for the law. In March the
president of the Canadian Police Association stated:
It bothers me that the public would
not support me in my line of duty. We've never been at odds with the public
before. This issue has done this. |
Constable John Gayder wrote:
In fact, the Firearms Act violates
every one of Peel's Principles of policing |
Sixth, the gun registry is riddled with errors. The
Liberals have so badly bungled the implementation of the bill that
registration, licensing errors and non-compliance by millions of responsible
firearms owners render the data in the gun registry unreliable and useless to
police. Aboriginal people are publicly defying the licensing and registration
system. The government admits that 320,000 gun owners failed to apply for a
firearms licence.
RCMP Superintendent Mike Buisson, director of firearms,
advised his staff that 90% of registration applications have errors. Despite
this fact daily production quotas have been tripled. Verifiers have been laid
off and staff directed to ignore the errors on registration applications. The
firearms registry is the biggest garbage collection system in the
country.
Seventh, Bill C-68 has taken police off the street. In
April a briefing note to the Minister of Justice reported that there were over
1,800 employees associated with the firearms program. This included about 400
employees in RCMP operations in Ottawa.
The report to the minister did not include the hundreds
of firearms officers working for provincial, regional and municipal police
forces. On September 21, 1995, Ontario Solicitor General Bob Runciman told the
Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs:
In national terms, $85 million would
put another 1,000 customs agents on the border; 500 million dollars would put
an extra 5,900 police officers on the street. |
After September 11, should we not be paying attention
to where we should be putting our public safety law enforcement
officers?
Eighth, Bill C-68 has diverted resources from real
policing priorities. More than half a billion dollars wasted so far on this
fatally flawed gun registry scheme could have been used for more important
police priorities. The police wanted a sex offender registry or a DNA databank
for all criminals. One of the Canadian police association's slogans was
“Register criminals before firearms”. Is the government listening? No, it is
not.
Ninth, Bill C-68 proved that registration does lead to
confiscation. I will not go into the details, but it has happened. On November
15, 1997, the Montreal Gazette quoted the Deputy Prime Minister as
saying:
This could be the start of a global
movement that would spur development of an instrument to ban firearms worldwide
similar to our land mines initiative. |
In drafting a new law to replace Bill C-68 the Liberal
government must understand that it is impossible to make anyone safer by laying
a piece of paper beside a gun. What should we do? We should be positive and
replace Bill C-68 with legislation based on fundamental principles.
It should crack down on criminals who use weapons, not
responsible firearms owners. It should be easy to understand, administer and
enforce the system. It should be cost effective and reduce the criminal use of
firearms.
(1840)
It should curtail smuggling and black market sales, not
increase them like it has. It should convince the vast majority of gun owners
to help the government and the police implement it. It should convince all
taxpayers to share the cost because everyone benefits from improved public
safety. It should be able to pass a public safety test administered by the
Auditor General of Canada. It should respect the exclusive constitutional
jurisdiction of the provinces and have their full support. It should respect
the fundamental rights of all individuals, especially property
rights.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that we will not have an
opportunity to extend the debate. I want to compliment the member for Cypress
Hills--Grasslands who has been steadfast in his work on this particular file.
For the most part, I completely concur with his comments. I applaud his
commitment to his own constituents on this particular issue.
The hon. member pointed out the very real fact that 6
out of 10 provinces, representing well over 80% of the population, whose
provincial governments for the most part will have to pay for a lot of the
implementation of that ill-advised act, opposed the Liberal long gun
registry.
It is clear, even in rural Canada, that taxing deer
hunters, duck hunters and farmers does not make any sense. We should be
focusing our energies on mandatory penalties for those individuals who commit
crimes using a firearm.
I would argue that the benchmark of any law should be
whether it is effective at obtaining its objectives, which is to deter the
criminal use of firearms, and whether it is cost effective. We know in point of
fact that it is not effective in deterring the criminal use of firearms. We
also now know that something that was supposed to cost only $85 million will
probably cost at least $800 million once it is fully implemented.
In this modern era, since September 11, why do we not
use those additional resources to ensure the security and perimeter of this
country in terms of the appropriate border officials from a customs perspective
and the ports police? Those issues should be addressed as well. Let us give
that money to the RCMP for new technology to fight cyber crime or the
subversive elements that exist internationally. We could give the money to CSIS
to augment its budget.
Let us give more money to the RCMP to fight organized
crime as opposed to taxing rural Canadians who are owners of long guns and
shotguns. These rifles are owned by our neighbours. They are the people who
would comply with the law. The biker gangs will not be running out to the
kiosks in malls to register their long guns.
I was very impressed with the comment made by the
member for Cypress Hills--Grasslands with respect to the massive increase in
black market sales that has taken place with respect to firearms. That was
essentially what we were very much trying to resist.
In a modern society everybody knows that we need to
have stringent regulations with respect to firearms to prevent accidental harm
to individuals. We need to ensure that we have rules in place.
Of course we should maintain the mandatory registry for
handguns. That has been in place since the 1930s. However, it is not about
handguns and it is not about Uzis, for which there may be debate in the states,
it is about long guns, ones that are used by everyday hunters and everyday
farmers who live throughout this great country.
I would move to seek unanimous consent for this private
member's bill to be votable so hon. members could have a chance to vote on
it.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair):
Is there unanimous consent to make this item a votable
item?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The time
provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. As
the motion has not been designated as a votable item, the order is dropped from
the order paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[Adjournment]
* * *
(1850)
[Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair):
These being our first adjournment proceedings since the
standing orders were changed, I would like to remind the hon. members of the
new system we adopted.
The member who raises the question may speak for up to
four minutes, as was the case before. The minister, or the parliamentary
secretary, now has four minutes in which to answer. Then, the member who raised
the question and the minister, or the parliamentary secretary, will each have
one minute to respond.
* * *
Airline
Industry
Mr. Paul Crête
(Kamouraska--Rivière-du-Loup--Témiscouata--Les Basques, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, on October 1, 2001, I put a question to
the Minister of Human Resources Development in the House—it was the
parliamentary secretary who replied—about Air Canada employees, who were going
through a very difficult time financially as a result of the events of
September 11.
I asked her at that time whether the government was
prepared to take special action in order to reduce the impact of the massive
layoffs resulting from the crisis caused by the acts of terrorism, which was
affecting the airlines in particular.
Since then, there have been meetings but no results. We
are still awaiting a response. Air Canada employees are calling for a program
of assistance for older workers, to provide those who have the most experience
but are prepared to retire with a program to bridge the gap between the time
they leave their job and the time they start to receive old age or other
pension benefits. This would allow younger employees to keep their jobs and
would be a very desirable approach.
Furthermore, it is expected that 750 people will show
up tomorrow to demand that the federal government act accordingly and take
appropriate steps.
This is a blatant example of the fact that, since
September 11, in terms of activities in support of the economic downturn, the
federal government's position is probably the weakest.
To deal with the security issue, the government
introduced anti-terrorism legislation, and several ministers appeared before
the various committees, but in terms of social support, in connection with the
layoffs, we are having a harder time convincing the government that special
measures are indeed necessary.
For example, in the area of tourism, the government of
Quebec recently unveiled an advertising campaign to encourage tourists to start
flying again, to come and visit Quebec, to enjoy, as they always have, our
quality of life.
We have seen nothing similar from the federal
government, especially not for those affected.
Travel agencies made representations to us. The
minister's office had to be contacted. Support on this issue is significant,
but ad hoc interventions are always required before any openness is shown at
the department, so that those hit by the massive layoffs resulting from the
events of September 11 can benefit from what ought to come naturally, that is
an open attitude.
I would like the parliamentary secretary to confirm
today that, indeed, there will be openness in resolving the matter of the Air
Canada employees and that they will be allowed to have a program to help older
employees who may wish to voluntarily leave the company do so under reasonable
circumstances, so that younger workers may keep their jobs.
I think this is a legitimate request. Several weeks
have passed since the events of September 11, and we are awaiting a positive
response from the government very soon.
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt the employees of Air
Canada have faced difficult, if not extremely difficult, days and weeks. There
is no doubt that all employees in air transportation will be profoundly
affected by the announced layoffs.
We have just read in today's paper of other possible
layoffs, especially in the Montreal area. Our government knows very well that,
where jobs are involved, it is already difficult enough to deal with the
precariousness of some of them.
I would like to assure my colleague opposite that we
are doing everything in our power to help the employees affected and their
company, in this time of uncertainty and great difficulty.
And what about Air Canada employees? The Minister of
Human Resources Development has expressed this same message of concern about
employees who have been laid off and those who may be very soon to the
representatives of Air Canada, when she met them at the beginning of the
month.
I believe it is important to look at the chronology of
what the department, and the minister in particular, have done. She again made
herself perfectly clear on this at another subsequent meeting with
representatives of the department and of Air Canada at which programs available
from HRDC to help their employees were discussed.
The job share program is precisely one of the measures
HRDC has proposed to Air Canada.
I have been asked by a number of people just what this
job sharing is all about. It is a very interesting program, one that does not
necessarily suit all companies, but which could be put in place in the case of
Air Canada, for example, or any other company that meets the program criteria.
It is intended to help employers forced to take
austerity measures, and this means that layoffs may be avoided.
How can this result be achieved? The work week is
shortened, and wages are reduced accordingly. HRDC lets the workers draw EI
benefits for the days they do not work, which helps compensate for the
reduction in wages.
So, in participating workplaces, employees receive
partial salaries but also draw employment insurance benefits.
The main advantage of this program is what it has to
offer employees. Not only does it help lessen the difficulties surrounding
layoff, but it also helps workers retain their skills and continue to make
profitable use of them in their work.
The next step between the employers and the department
was a meeting between departmental and Air Canada representatives. So far,
discussions have mainly focused on job sharing as a means of reducing the
number of layoffs.
Now the ball is in the airlines' and unions' court, as
they have to look at the mechanisms of application they would like to see put
in place in connection with the job sharing agreements.
I am confident at this time that good will and
flexibility will make it possible for us to support one or more job sharing
agreements in the airline industry.
(1855)
Mr. Paul Crête:
Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Human Resources Development says so herself. More layoffs are
coming. So the situation will continue.
If, as the parliamentary secretary says, the government
is doing all it can to remedy the situation, why do people feel they have to
come to Ottawa tomorrow to demonstrate? Why are 750 employee representatives
going to be here to ask the government to do something? Because this is what is
at issue here.
We want the government to act. The time for studies and
proposals is past. Now what is needed is definite proposals on the table. There
has been a lot of talk about shared jobs. Indeed, this is an interesting
program. But why not also have a program to assist older employees, as people
are calling for? In other words, some flexibility reflecting the makeup of the
workforce of this company.
Is the government going to decide to take action, to
send definite signals and to initiate the changes sought by workers and
justified by the state of the economy at the moment?
Ms. Raymonde Folco:
Mr. Speaker, I remind the member opposite that the
employment insurance program is working, and is working very well. The very
reason it was created was to respond, in part, to the needs of these
individuals.
I do not know what those who are going to demonstrate
on Parliament Hill tomorrow are thinking, but I sincerely wonder how aware they
are of the efforts their employer—if their employer is Air Canada—has made to
find a solution with the department.
I can tell the member that we expect to receive a
request to approve work sharing from Air Canada shortly and that, when we do,
we will pass it along to a team, within the department which was put together
for that purpose and which will proceed as quickly as possible.
I emphasize—and I say this to the member—that the
employment insurance program is there to help Air Canada employees. The
department will work with Air Canada, as it has already begun to do. We have
great hope that this program will work very well in the days to
come.
* * *
(1900)
[English]
Discrimination
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, since the tragic events of September 11 we
in the federal New Democratic Party have condemned in the strongest possible
terms as crimes against humanity the terrorist attacks of September 11. We call
for the perpetrators to be brought to justice before an international tribunal
to be established by the United Nations Security Council and approved by the UN
General Assembly.
We have also been clear in opposing the federal
government's decision to commit Canadian military support to the U.S. led
military action, particularly given that the U.S. has indicated that it may be
prepared to expand its attacks to other countries beyond
Afghanistan.
We have also supported calls to work in the longer term
to eradicate the conditions from which despair, violence, hatred and discord
arise.
We have also urged the federal government to lead all
Canadians in fighting against the rising tide of intolerance and racism in the
aftermath of September 11, particularly directed at Muslims and Arab Canadians.
That is the focus of my remarks in the House tonight.
Canada is one of the most ethnically mixed and
multicultural nations in the world. My own riding of Vancouver East, which I am
very proud to represent, is one of the most diverse in the country.
While we can all be proud that the very meaning of
Canada is about diversity and respecting differences, we must also come to
terms with the fact that nearly 275,000 Canadians were victims of hate crimes
last year according to Statistics Canada. Sadly since September 11 the number
of racist incidents in Canada has been on the rise. We have heard of them as
they have been reported in the media.
In Cold Lake, Alberta, Canadian born Muslims got phone
calls telling them that all Arabs should be killed. In Oakville, Ontario five
students were assaulted for being Arabs. In Ottawa a young Arab teen was beaten
unconscious by two other teenagers.
We can only begin to imagine the human pain and
suffering that this causes, particularly for young people who are trying to
come to terms with what is going on.
We also know that according to the police in Ottawa
there has been a doubling of racist incidents reported in our national capital
since the attack on the World Trade Center Other cities are also reporting a
significant increase.
We in the NDP have called on the federal government to
take urgent action to fight racism and discrimination. We have urged the
federal government to adopt an action plan that would include public discussion
and education and clear enforcement of the criminal code sections concerning
racism. We have called on the government to appoint a task force to monitor the
reported incidents of racism and to monitor police investigations and
prosecutions.
We also call on the Liberal government to reaffirm
Canadian values and support for multiculturalism that was introduced as
Canadian policy in 1971 by then Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Back in
1971 the New Democratic Party welcomed that commitment. Our leader of the day,
the Hon. David Lewis, clearly stated:
The diversity of cultures across
(Canada) is a source of our greatness as a people...in every society a minority
has a problem, the problem of survival, the problem of keeping alive its
history, its language, its traditions, its songs, its legends, its identity.
When the majority in a society is as cruel as majorities have often been, not
only are minorities crushed but the spirit of that society, the soul of that
society, is destroyed. |
We need to heed the words of Mr. Lewis today. We need
to reaffirm our commitment to the observance of human rights and civil
liberties, particularly as we now debate Bill C-36 on anti-terrorism and
respect civil rights in this country.
Mr. Stephen Owen (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for her eloquent
and important words and her question in the House. I too have the honour of
representing a Vancouver constituency with an immensely diverse cultural
makeup.
Certainly all members of the government and the hon.
member's party, and she has eloquently restated it, support the principles of
multiculturalism that underpin the strength of our country. Diversity is our
strength, but we also appreciate that that very diversity, where it is
reflected in minorities, can sometimes put those minorities at risk from hate
and discrimination in our society.
As the Prime Minister indicated in his reply to the
hon. member's question, he has consistently condemned hate motivated threats
and acts on virtually every occasion on which he has commented on the aftermath
of the tragic events of September 11. He, along with the leaders of all parties
in the House, has called on Canadians to demonstrate the tolerance and
understanding upon which our multicultural and democratic society has been
built.
The Prime Minister also referred in his response to the
fact that the Criminal Code of Canada contains provisions which can and should
be used to address the problem of hate motivated crime. Sections 318 and 319 of
the code provide the offences of advocating or promoting genocide or public
incitement of hatred against an identifiable group. These measures have been
used effectively in prosecuting hate motivated crimes in the case of Keegstra
and others.
In 1995 parliament passed what the Supreme Court of
Canada called the most significant reform of the law of sentencing in Canadian
history. One of the key elements of those reforms was the inclusion in the
criminal code of a statement of the purpose and principles of sentencing.
Among the principles in the criminal code is found
subsection 718.2(a)(i), which states that “evidence that the offence was
motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin,
language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual
orientation or any other similar factor” shall be deemed to be an aggravating
circumstance in sentencing. This means that if the court finds that the offence
was motivated by hate based on one of these grounds, the sentence should be
increased to reflect society's condemnation of that fact.
A threat, or in the case that the hon. member cited, an
assault against one member of a religious group can be designed to have an
impact on all members of that group by creating an environment of fear and
intimidation among them.
This change to the law appears to be having an impact
on sentencing patterns. The leading case on the interpretation of subsection
718.2(a)(i) comes from the hon. member's province and mine. In Regina v
Miloszewski, five men, all self-proclaimed racists, who kicked and beat a Sikh
man to death in the parking lot of a temple in Surrey pleaded guilty to
manslaughter. The lengthy sentences imposed showed that this subsection had a
significant influence on the sentencing judge. Judge Stewart said the
subsection was “a direction to sentencing judges to give substantial weight to
this aggravating factor as the section now reflects the will of Canadians as
expressed by parliament”.
Just last week another hate crime was dealt with in a
New Brunswick court. A 19-year-old man was convicted of placing a cross on the
lawn of a black family and lighting it on fire. He was found guilty of willful
promotion of hatred and sentenced to four months in jail. He was also placed on
three years probation, the maximum permitted by the code, and ordered to
undergo sensitivity therapy.
Cases such as these show that we have the tools in our
law to respond sternly to hate based crime.
(1905)
Ms. Libby Davies:
Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the comments of the
hon. member.
I agree that the Prime Minister and in fact all leaders
and my own leader presented a motion for the unanimous approval of the House
condemning the increase in racism.
It is disappointing that the government has not been
forthcoming or specific in terms of what it now intends to do when it is
clearly visible to us that certain groups, members of the Muslim community,
Canadian Arabs in particular, are being targeted as a result of the aftermath
of September 11.
I again urge the government to be committed to a
specific action plan that focuses on broad education. For example, the $500,000
that is in the budget now is already committed. We need to be doing additional
work in this area and setting up a special task force to monitor these report
crimes. I would ask the member to respond to that specifically.
Mr. Stephen Owen:
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member's
suggestions. I think all of us in the House support the condemnation of hate
motivated crimes.
Many provinces have hate crimes units. British Columbia
has one which looks into such matters through the province's prosecution
services and police forces. Canada's multiculturalism programs must give these
issues the special attention they are due.
Earlier this week the Minister of Justice tabled in the
House the government's package of anti-terrorism measures. Included in Bill
C-36 is an amendment that would create a new criminal offence of mischief to
religious buildings or property which is “motivated by bias, prejudice or hate
based on religion, race, colour or national or ethnic origin”.
These measures, in addition to the provisions I have
mentioned and the multiculturalism policies of Canada, can be focused on the
concerns the hon. member has raised.
(1910)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair):
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have
been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10
a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.10 p.m.)