CANADA House of Commons Debates VOLUME 137 Ï NUMBER 182 Ï 1st SESSION Ï 37th PARLIAMENT OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Friday, May 3, 2002 Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken CONTENTS (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) All parliamentary publications are available on the ``Parliamentary Internet Parlementaire´´ at the following address: http://www.parl.gc.ca 11161 HOUSE OF COMMONS Friday, May 3, 2002 The House met at 10 a.m. We must, however, take care not to go to the opposite extreme and enact legislation with potential negative impact on the rights and freedoms of those we wish to protect, under the guise of fighting Prayers terrorism. We do not have to go far back in time to recall the late unlamented Bill C-42, so criticized for its negative effects on Ï (1010) fundamental rights and freedoms. [English] At the time, the government was busy boasting right and left of BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE what an ardent promoter of public security it was, rejecting the criticisms that were being made from this side of the House. Now The Deputy Speaker: It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order here we are again, starting off a new debate on a similar bill, 81 to inform the House that the motion to be considered Monday although a few changes have been made. during consideration of the business of supply is as follows: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should cease and desist its Why are we having this new debate? Simply because the public, sustained legislative and political attacks on the lives and livelihoods of rural Canadians and the communities where they live. which is not stupid, condemned, like the Bloc Quebecois, Bill C-42, since it violated civil liberties and made us fear the worst by bringing The motion, standing in the name of the hon. member for back bad memories, including what happened in 1970 with the War Yorkton—Melville, is not votable. Copies of the motion are Measures Act. So, the government had no choice but to recognize available at the table. that the public's judgment can make the Liberals blush. The bill now before us is a new version of Bill C-42. How is Bill C-55 different? Is it an improved version? These are two GOVERNMENT ORDERS fundamental questions that must be answered. Ï (1020) First, in what way is it different? Unfortunately, there is very little [Translation] difference. In the first draft of this bill, because it is certainly PUBLIC SAFETY ACT, 2002 appropriate to call Bill C-42 a draft, great power was given to a single person, namely the Minister of National Defence. The House resumed from May 2, 2002 consideration of the motion: that Bill C-55, An Act to amend certain Acts of Canada, and How could the government put such power in the hands of a to enact measures for implementing the Biological and Toxin single person, this at a time when the authority delegated to the Weapons Convention, in order to enhance public safety, be read the executive branch is being questioned, at a time when we are asking second time and referred to a committee; and the amendment. the legislative branch to have more of a say in the decision making Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. process? The situation is all the more alarming because the decision Speaker, rising to speak to Bill C-55 does not require one to redefine to suspend people's fundamental rights will be based on the in detail the context we find ourselves in since September 11, since minister's judgment. the impact of those attacks has been discussed more than once, along with the steps to be taken to prevent, or at least deal with, such A lot of things have happened since Bill C-42 was introduced. events. Indeed, we were able to witness the very high degree of judgment of the Minister of National Defence, who omitted to inform the Prime The Bloc Quebecois has, moreover, proposed some clear paths Minister of the capture of Afghan prisoners and their handing over to toward solutions that would eliminate one of the most fertile grounds the Americans. Everyone still clearly remembers the uproar created for terrorism: the abject poverty in which millions live in this world. in this House by this whole story. Under Bill C-55, it is that same We have moreover agreed that it was also important to protect our person who would have control over our rights and freedoms. Mr. territory from any possibility of attack. Public safety must be ensured Speaker, if you feel a chill running down your spine do not worry, it through peactical measures and clearly defined legislation that has is not the flu; you are perfectly normal, you are a person of been the object of informed debate. judgment. 11162 COMMONS DEBATES May 3, 2002 Government Orders Just think about this for a moment. This minister can, all alone, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They will also recall decide to create controlled access military zones and determine their that it neglected to mention the unilateral patriation of the dimensions. If he deems it appropriate to keep the whole thing constitution, probably not thinking it was reasonably necessary. secret, he also has the power to do so. It is legitimate to hope that the Now, just a few dark nights and one brief burst of sunshine later, this criteria under which he would make all these decisions are well same government is prepared to set aside these rights and freedoms defined and specified in the legislation, but this is not the case at all. in the name of the fight against terrorism. How is it that while, on the one hand, the Liberal government is proudly extolling the Canadian The bill simply says that the minister must base his decisions on Charter of Rights and Freedoms, on the other, it is crushing those what he believes is reasonably necessary. Could the wording be any same rights and there is nothing to stop it? A bit of consistency more discretionary? I doubt it. Not only are we talking about would do this government a lot of good, but perhaps we are judgment, which is hardly objective or reassuring, but then on top of dreaming in colour. that is says reasonably necessary. Allow to me raise the following question: what does reasonably Mr. Speaker, if the designation of a zone has harmed you in some necessary really mean? How can such a qualifier restrict and limit a way, that will be just too bad for you. But you can take comfort in minister's actions? the fact that the maximum length of time for which such a zone may I, for example, may find it reasonably necessary to remove these be designated is two years. Members will admit that that is a bit long. terms from the bill and define specific restrictions on the minister. I Here again, the government will tell you that there is no use claiming may also believe that it is reasonably necessary, given that we live in that your rights and freedoms have been violated and that, wonder of a representative democracy, for parliament to be consulted prior to wonders, we live in a country which operates under the rule of law. proposing such measures. Will my interpretation be similar to that of the minister's? The answer is obvious. The bill has carefully retained the provisions allowing various Ï (1025) ministers to make interim orders. However, there is a slight When it comes to controlled access military zones, the minister difference which is worth pointing out. The initial duration of does not need the approval of the provincial government. Which interim orders has gone from 90 to 45 days. Then, orders will have to includes, obviously, all of the consequences of this power. Should be tabled in each house of parliament on any of the first 15 days on this information be made public? No, not really, the government will which that house is sitting after the interim order is made. So far, so tell us. How else are we supposed to react, other than to be good. But then we find out the real nature of these interim orders. It suspicious and remain vigilant about this situation that, incidentally, is clearly set out in subsection (4) that an interim order is exempt seems to have survived the demise of Bill C-42 only to resurface from the application of section 3 of the Statutory Instruments Act. In again in Bill C-55. plain language, this means that the interim order does not have to be consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Another issue related to these famous military zones that has left the Canadian Bill of Rights. us perplexed is the lack of recourse before the courts for persons wronged by a controlled access military zone. For those who are wronged by the creation of such a zone, there is no recourse Does that not prove that this government is seeking the power to available, even if the government claims otherwise. The bill states restrict our rights and freedoms with total impunity? What we fear clearly, and I quote: and what was deliberately included in this bill in order to set aside the most important elements of our democracy is the loss of total 260.1 (14) No action for loss, damage or injury lies by reason only of the designation of a controlled access military zone or the implementation of measures to respect for the rights and freedoms of every citizen.