C-17 Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Legislative Committee on Bill C-17

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, April 29, 2003

1535

The Chair (Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, Lib.))

Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ)

Le président

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP)

The Chair

Mr. John Read (Director General, Safety and Security Group, Department of Transport)

1540

Mr. Mario Laframboise

The Chair

1545

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise

Le président

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. John Read

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

1550

The Chair

Mr. John Read

The Chair

Mrs. Sherill Besser (Senior Counsel, Department of Transport)

Le président

Mr. Mario Laframboise

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance)

1555

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Le président

1600

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. John Read

The Chair

Mr. Christian Roy

Mr. Mario Laframboise

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

1605

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. Christian Roy

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

1610

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mr. Christian Roy

Ms. Marian Harymann (Acting Director, Policing Policy Division, Department of the Solicitor General)

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise

1615

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

M. Christian Roy

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

Mr. Christian Roy

Mr. Gary Lunn

1620

Mr. Christian Roy

Mr. Gary Lunn

Mr. Christian Roy

Mr. Gary Lunn

Mr. Christian Roy

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. Christian Roy

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. Christian Roy

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. Christian Roy

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

1625

Ms. Marian Harymann

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Ms. Marian Harymann

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

Mr. Christian Roy

1630

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mr. Christian Roy

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mr. Christian Roy

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

1635

Mr. Mario Laframboise

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise

Ms. Marian Harymann

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise

1640

The Chair

Mr. Christian Roy

Mr. Mario Laframboise

M. Christian Roy

Mr. Mario Laframboise

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. Christian Roy

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. Christian Roy

Le président

Mr. Mario Laframboise

1645

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Mario Laframboise

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Mario Laframboise

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Christian Roy

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. Christian Roy

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. Christian Roy

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise

Le président

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Le président

Mr. Marcel Proulx

1650

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise

1655

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Mario Laframboise

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Mario Laframboise

The Chair

Mr. John Read

1700

Mrs. Sherill Besser

Mr. Mario Laframboise

The Chair

Mr. John Read

1705

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise

Mr. John Read

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise

1710

The Chair

Mrs. Sherill Besser

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. John Read

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. John Read

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. John Read

Mrs. Sherill Besser

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

1715

Mr. Mario Laframboise

Le président

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise

1720

Le président

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Mario Laframboise

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

M. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

1725

The Chair

Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise

The Chair

Le greffier du comité

Mr. Mario Laframboise

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. John Read

1730

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

CANADA

Legislative Committee on Bill C-17

NUMBER 018

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, April 29, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹ (1535)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order on Bill C-17.

[Translation]

Now Mr. Laframboise is going to introduce the amendment... But first, Mr. Proulx.

Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): With your permission,

[English]

I have a point of information. You'll recall that on April 8 Mrs. Desjarlais asked a question about appointments to the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada. She wanted to know how these appointments were made; she thought it was the minister. We've done some research, and we can give you a copy of the document. The answer is that the Governor in Council designates the chairperson and the vice-chairperson of the tribunal. The act is not yet enforced, but this is what it's all about.

The Chair: Thank you for that additional information.

[Translation]

Mr. Laframboise, please.

Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

So the amendment before us is correlative with amendment BQ-11. Its purpose is to replace the period of seven days in subclause 4.81(8) on page 11. That subclause reads: “Information [...] must be destroyed within seven days after it was disclosed under subsection (3).”

I move that Bill C-17, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing lines 20 to 22 on page 11 with the following:

Subsection (4) must be destroyed within 24 hours after the landing of the aircraft in respect of which the information is provided or disclosed.

So, Mr. Chairman, the principle is that, in any case, when the airlines are required to communicate information, it is because they have received it before the aircraft took off. They have sufficient time, and it's often a few days before take-off. Thus, the security we want to guarantee for passengers, for Canadians and Quebeckers travelling by air, is that the information retained on them is destroyed within 24 hours after the landing of the aircraft so that they are not subject, in countries they visit, to instructions given by other countries which might jeopardize their safety, Mr. Chairman.

Le président: Thank you very much.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: I would point out to my colleague that we cannot support his amendment because the information that would be obtained on a hijacking under paragraph 4.81(1)(a) would be retained for at least the duration of the incident, and that could be more than 24 hours after the landing of the aircraft. In addition, we sincerely believe that it is much more reasonable to have a time limit for all data bases. It's a question of the possibility of controlling and understanding. So we cannot support his amendment.

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Desjarlais.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): My understanding is that information can be kept if something happens, but it would not be if nothing takes place.

The Chair: Does someone wish to address that?

Mr. Read.

Mr. John Read (Director General, Safety and Security Group, Department of Transport): To expand upon the remarks that were made, proposed section 4.81 has two ways in which data can be collected. As he pointed out with respect to proposed paragraph 4.81(1)(a), this is when there's an immediate threat to the flight, such as a hijacking. In fact, there was an airbus 300 hijacked in December 1999, and the passengers and the crew were kept on that aircraft for eight days. So the idea that as soon as the plane lands, we should give up the information is not that reasonable with respect to something like a hijacking, where the aircraft can be involved for much longer after it arrives on the ground.

As was already mentioned, the concept is that Transport Canada is not an investigative body. If, for example, there is something of long duration, we would pass the information to the RCMP or CSIS for review under proposed section 4.82. So we have for Transport Canada the same seven-day period as the RCMP for handling these kinds of data, and it's only the RCMP who can go beyond, and they can go beyond when they have a valid reason.

The second way Transport Canada could collect data is from what we refer to as a watch list. Under proposed paragraph 4.81(1)(b), we can go to the airlines to request information on a specific name. That's the only other way Transport Canada can obtain information. In that instance, if there is no information to be obtained, there's nothing to be held. This is not a person chosen at random, there was already reason to believe this person could be a threat to aviation security, and that's why they're on this list. Nevertheless, in Transport we could only hold that information for seven days. If there were some longer time implications, we again would transfer that information to an investigative body, which would be the RCMP or CSIS, and they would hold it under the rules of proposed section 4.82 for their purposes.

So in summary, there are only two ways Transport Canada can gather information. The first is with hijacking, and it's not reasonable to suggest that as soon as the plane lands, you drop all that information. The second one is with specific people for whom you're looking for information. We do not have the capability in Transport to gather general information on people.

¹ (1540)

[Translation]

Mr. Mario Laframboise: Mr. Chairman, our concern is precisely that information is being kept on individuals unrelated to terrorism. That's the problem of the seven-day period for disclosing information. First, when does disclosure of information stop? It will never stop; someone will request it again. So that inevitably means that the seven days may last for an entire trip, and it's because of that that we want this to stop.

According to the way the text is drafted, that means that, during those seven days, information on individuals may be retained and discussed. Our problem is not the person who is wanted; it's that there are all these people in the files which could be discussed and have nothing to do with the persons concerned.

It is enough for a person to have the misfortune to take a plane with someone who may be a serious or very serious case. Because obviously, in your bill, information isn't just gathered on terrorists; that was even admitted in committee. This also concerns people who have warrants and all that. If individuals, men and women, have the misfortune to be in the same aircraft as someone who has a warrant for things that are not necessarily very serious—as the Canadian Bar Association told you, it's not necessarily for serious matters that warrants are issued—that means that information will be gathered on them during the time of their trip. Perhaps CSIS could even provide that information to other countries, which do not necessarily have the same habits of respect for rights and freedoms as we do. That's our concern.

That's why we feel the time of possession of this information should be limited. You tell us today that you're going to punish everyone because it may happen perhaps once in a thousand times that an aircraft is grounded because of a terrorist attack. I believe we would understand if you retained information on those persons if ever there was a terrorist attack and the aircraft was grounded. What we want is for no investigations to be conducted in the case of ordinary travellers more than 24 hours after the landing of their aircraft. That's our objective, and we maintain our position in any case.

The Chair: Is there any debate? So I put the question. Who is in favour of amendment BQ-10?

¹ (1545)

[English]

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: This amendment reflects statements we heard from the legal community with regard to ensuring that privacy was maintained. I won't go into the whole scope of it, as people have had it for a long time, but it basically is to ensure greater scrutiny of information.

The Chair: Monsieur Proulx.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Merci, monsieur le président.

The Privacy Commissioner has broad powers under the Privacy Act, including the power to investigate, require the production of the documents he considers necessary, and issue annual or special reports. Therefore, we will not be supporting NDP-6. We feel the Privacy Commissioner has sufficient authority to secure all records.

The Chair: Monsieur Laframboise.

[Translation]

Mr. Mario Laframboise: Mr. Chairman, I find it very hard to understand the government's position because if ever it is said that the Privacy Commissioner has these powers, why don't we accept the proposal of my colleague, Mrs. Desjarlais? Why don't we clarify the situation so that the entire population who reads this act clearly understands that there is a way to protect themselves and that the Privacy Commissioner can intervene and see that no information on citizens is unduly retained?

So if what the government is telling us is true and the Privacy Commissioner has this power, why don't we agree to my colleague's proposal? It's simple; we're just going to make it more open and transparent for the public. Why always hide intentions in messages that aren't clear? Why not say things clearly, Mr. Proulx? It's simple; you need only accept it, it's going to be clear, people will understand, and it will convey your idea. If you say that the Privacy Commissioner has this power, why don't we write it clearly so that people can read it too?

Le président: Mr. Proulx.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: It's not a matter of concealing anything. It's only an observation that the Commissioner has the necessary powers. We can ask Mr. Read or Ms. ... The powers are there.

[English]

Mr. John Read: We could delve into the amendment itself, for example, detailing how this information was used. We're talking about information dealing with terrorists, and if we were to go into these kinds of reports, I think we would be losing some of the effectiveness of what we're trying to achieve in security. The main point here is that the Privacy Commissioner has been established with all of his authorities. He chooses those events he wishes to investigate and has all the authority he needs to look at all documents he wishes to look at and to get answers to all questions he puts.

The Chair: Ms. Desjarlais.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Mr. Read, did I hear correctly that you are concerned about information related to terrorism that would be given to the Privacy Commissioner? If I did hear that from you, that is probably a crucial reason everyone who appeared before us with concerns over privacy wanted a statement within this legislation to ensure that the Privacy Commissioner would have access. I think there was acknowledgment that the Privacy Commissioner does have some rights, but there was concern that there would be some skirting around the Privacy Commissioner's ability to get this information. I think the Privacy Commissioner himself has indicated concern as to whether or not he would get all the information that was necessary.

¹ (1550)

The Chair: Mr. Read.

Mr. John Read: Just to clarify. I made a mistake. I was catching these words when I was formulating my other answer. I apologize for that response.

The Privacy Commissioner gets whatever he wants to look at. That's perfectly clear. How we used it, why we used it, what we used and what we didn't use, if you ask those questions, he gets full answers. The second part of the answer still stands, that he does have all the authorities he needs to conduct his activities already.

The Chair: Ms. Besser, would you like to expand on that?

Mrs. Sherill Besser (Senior Counsel, Department of Transport): The investigations discussed in NDP-6 are repetitive, in that the Privacy Act covers them. I'm afraid, if we start culling out certain sections or adding to it, we may have an unforeseen result, in that we may limit the powers of the Privacy Commissioner under his act. The Privacy Commissioner has the power to investigate complaints on his own initiative or on the initiative of an individual. That's already covered in his act. So I don't think this adds to his powers, but it could have the unforeseen result of limiting his powers.

[Translation]

Le président: Mr. Laframboise.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, but some things are troubling me.

First of all, the Privacy Commissioner asked us to include provisions to ensure he could intervene. Now we're being told that there's no problem. But this was an express request by the Privacy Commissioner.

We all agree that terrorists must not be allowed to move freely, but it nevertheless remains that, for a handful of terrorists, we're going to retain lists and information on individuals. What we want to ensure is that there is a neutral and independent person who can guarantee us that the RCMP or CSIS will not unduly retain information on individuals, men or women.

Why don't we assign that mandate to a neutral third party? What we have here is very explicit. The public would thus be reassured to know that these police organizations do not unduly retain information on individuals.

For my part, I don't understand why we refuse to give a third party a chance. If he ever abused his power, the act could always be amended. In fact, we should make that a duty. I believe that the Commissioner's request and my colleague's position were both valid. I will support this proposal, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Is there any further debate?

(Amendment negatived [[See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Ms. Desjarlais, on NDP-7 on page 23, please, and so too your amendment 8.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Yes, the definitions would apply if the new section 4.821 were added; the definitions would apply to that section as well.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Proulx.

[English]

Mr. Marcel Proulx: We feel it is unnecessary. The Privacy Commissioner already has access to information under RCMP or CSIS control. The existing oversight mechanisms are adequate, so we will not support this amendment.

The Chair: Is there further debate on NDP-7 and NDP-8?

(Amendments negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: I'll now go to Mr. Lunn, CA-1, page 24.

Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

What we've done is add to the definition section “flight”, and we've defined it “means a non-stop commercial air service between two identified points on a specific date”. The rationale for the amendment is to ensure that if the government wants to have access to the passenger lists on every domestic flight, rather than just those few flights for which there may be a concern, they should state such a desire clearly. We believe defining the word flight will make this clearer.

¹ (1555)

The Chair: Mr. Proulx.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Mr. Chair, we will not support this amendment. We would like the opposition member to realize that there are aircraft with large fuel loads other than in commercial air service. If we were to specify or define flight this way.... We just can't do it.

The Chair: Is there further debate?

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: We now go to

[Translation]

Mr. Laframboise for amendment BQ-13 on page 26. Amendment BQ-12 was agreed to because it was correlative with...

Mr. Laframboise.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: So it's the deletion of lines 8 to 23 on page 12. This obviously concerns the definition of the word “warrant”, which includes:

(a) A warrant issued in Canada in respect of the arrest of a person for the commission of an offence that may be punishable under any Act of Parliament by imprisonment for a term of five years or more and that is specified by regulations made under subsection (20);

It's the same for lines 35 to 42 on the previous page. The Canadian Bar Association, among others, requested that every reference to the word “warrant” be deleted from this bill to prevent people who are not necessarily terrorists from being concerned by this new act. In other words, those people would become liable to the same kind of surveillance as if they had been labelled as terrorists. That was criticized by the Canadian Bar Association, which said that it was highly excessive to use the word “warrant” in the bill. Consequently, what we're asking you is to delete the word “warrant”.

That doesn't prevent you from fighting terrorism. There are a number of ways for the RCMP and CSIS to capture persons for whom they have issued warrants. Quite often, the crimes committed by those persons are not serious enough to justify using the term “terrorist”, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Mr. Proulx.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I understand what Mr. Laframboise is telling us. We have discussed this question quite exhaustively in committee. However, we believe that...

[English]

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the translation is not coming simultaneously. They're taking an extremely long time. To this point we have not received one word of translation.

[Translation]

Le président: Mr. Proulx.

º (1600)

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I insist on answering in French, Mr. Laframboise and Mr. Chairman. So I'll continue.

I can understand the view that Mr. Laframboise is advancing. I know that we have discussed it quite exhaustively in committee. However, we believe that the warrant disclosure mechanism is necessary for public safety reasons. So I would like to ask Mr. Read and Ms. Besser whether they have any additional comments to make. That may help to convince my colleague opposite.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Read.

Mr. John Read: I think I'll pass this one to the Solicitor General's department.

The Chair: Monsieur Roy.

[Translation]

Mr. Christian Roy (legal counsel, Department of the Solicitor General): Essentially, the only other proposal that we could add, Mr. Chairman, would be that the provision be included to ensure that officers designated by the RCMP who circumstantially discover information leading them to believe that one of the passengers is subject to a warrant may transmit that information. Subclause 4.82(7) expressly provides that information on passengers may be disclosed only in accordance with subsections (8) to (12). It was therefore necessary to make provision for that permission in clause 4.8.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: This is probably the last time I'll have the chance to express my point of view. I wish to emphasize that the Canadian Bar Association is not around to enable terrorists to walk about in the country. With regard to the term “warrant”, those people tell us, on page 1 of their brief, that, while the term “warrant” has been defined more precisely, it still applies to offences that are not extremely serious and that are not related to terrorism and that, consequently, Canadians may choose not to provide personal information to persons administering the act, except in certain situations. They also say that it is quite naive to believe that, in administering acts, staff would not act on inadvertent matchings after gaining access to passenger information, even if those matches were unrelated to terrorism. Consequently, they come to the conclusion that all references to the term “warrant” should be deleted from the bill.

I wish to emphasize that these are legal professionals and that they are telling us that there are currently abuses and that the RCMP and CSIS will use this for purposes other than the fight against terrorism. You are trying to reassure us, but I believe that you have in fact just validated what you have long wanted, that is to be able to build data bases on individuals, men and women, who have nothing to do with terrorism.

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Desjarlais.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: As Mr. Laframboise has mentioned, it was a matter of grave concern to a number of representatives from the civil liberties and the legal communities that this bill, rather than being used for transportation security and public security related to terrorism, was being used as a way of just tracking down people on warrants. I would ask that you recall the number of warrants we were told were outstanding and query the reasonableness of trying to even follow through on that kind of action. To me, it is absolutely ludicrous--I hate to use the word foolish--to even suggest that this is possible. It is purely being used as a fishing expedition. There are certain areas where people probably feel, yes, you're going to find them, you're going to get them, but the risk to the innocent public is far greater than the risk to those who have committed crimes, and I would ask that you reconsider putting innocent Canadians through this kind of action just for the sake of having a database.

The Chair: Is there any further debate?

[Translation]

(Amendment BQ-13 negatived)

[English]

The Chair: This is identical to CA-2, so we will not put that amendment.

We now go to Mr. Lunn on CA-3 on page 28.

º (1605)

Mr. Gary Lunn: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

This amendment makes a warrant applicable only to extraditable offences, changing the definition of warrant in proposed subsection 4.82(1) of the Aeronautics Act by striking out paragraphs (a) and (b).

The Chair: Monsieur Proulx.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: We will not support that amendment either, Mr. Chair. We feel there's a need to assist with the execution of a warrant issued within and outside Canada.

The Chair: Is there further debate.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings)]

The Chair: Mr. Lunn, CA-4 on page 29.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Thank you.

This one basically makes the English and French versions equal and clarifies whether the bill deals with access to airline databases for all flights or passenger lists for specific flights.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: We oppose this because it limits the flexibility of the RCMP to request access to all flights, and it also creates an inconsistency with the French text and CSIS access to all flights. So we have to oppose this amendment.

The Chair: is there debate?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Mr. Lunn, CA-5 on page 30.

Mr. Gary Lunn: This amendment deletes the words of proposed subsection 4.82(7) after “(12)”. If the information is to be shared among various government agencies, this should be done only for the purposes of national security. So it is deleting “or for the purpose of complying with a subpoena or document issued or order made by a court, person or body with jurisdiction to compel the production of information, or for the purpose of complying with rules of court relating to the production of information.”

The Chair: Monsieur Proulx.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: We will have to oppose this. As far as we're concerned, this authority is essential for the administration of justice, and maybe we can ask a representative of the Solicitor General to confirm this.

The Chair: Monsieur Roy.

Mr. Christian Roy: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As we understand the proposed amendment, it would essentially take out the ability to disclose in the context of a subpoena. Disclosure of information for the purpose of complying with a subpoena or a court order could typically occur in the context of a public enquiry, a hearing before an oversight body, or in a civil or criminal court case in which information collected under proposed section 4.82 may be pertinent. So we think it is relatively important to retain that ability to disclose. The ability to disclose information for this purpose is also reflected in other statutes, such as the Customs Act or the Privacy Act.

The Chair: Is there any further debate? The amendment has been withdrawn.

I'll now go to G-4, page 31. Monsieur Proulx.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: This amendment restricts the urgent disclosures under proposed subsection 4.82(10) to only those persons who are in a position to take measures to respond to a life, health, safety, or transportation security threat and need the information to respond. This change would address the committee's concern that the current wording of this provision, which permits disclosures to any person, is too broad and could result in inappropriate disclosures to non-essential persons.

º (1610)

The Chair: Is there debate?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[Translation]

Mr. Laframboise, amendment 14 on page 32.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: Mr. Chairman, that's obviously further to my remarks on the previous amendment concerning the term “warrant”.

You know, the Canadian Bar Association is increasingly very much opposed to the person designated under subsection (2) being able to disclose information to any peace officer so that the peace officer can use all the information in the warrant, proceed with arrests and all that, without, in our view, respecting the rights of individuals.

I'll reread the position of the Canadian Bar Association: “Bill C-17 retains subsection 4.82(11), which still permits information to be disclosed to any peace officer...”

Obviously it was a request by the Canadian Bar Association that subsection 11 be deleted, and I suppose the government is going to maintain its position.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: I maintain the same position as the one we gave you on amendment BQ-13. We oppose that amendment.

The Chair: Are there any other comments?

[English]

Ms. Desjarlais, go ahead.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: If the government saw the need with G-4 to designate who might necessarily receive the information, why wouldn't they support this amendment as well?

The Chair: Monsieur Roy.

Mr. Christian Roy: In G-4 the reference to a designated person relates to persons who are designated by the Commissioner of the RCMP under subsection (2), and persons who could have made a disclosure under subsection (10) were always intended to be designated persons, so someone who is not a designated person could not, either in the current form set out in G-4 or in the form of the bill that was tabled. G-4 does not change anything with respect to the status of the person making the disclosure.

Ms. Marian Harymann (Acting Director, Policing Policy Division, Department of the Solicitor General): If I could just add to that response, with respect to the disclosure of information to a peace officer, the peace officer isn't designated further in the legislation, because it depends on the police force that has the authority to execute the warrant

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Laframboise.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: Well, this is precisely the problem the Canadian Bar Association envisioned, that is to say that this can be disclosed to any peace officer. It should never be forgotten that the principle of this bill is to arrest terrorists, not to arrest individuals for any purpose. I find it incredible that the government supports that. I have no problem with it, except that that was not the purpose of the bill. The purpose of the bill was to arrest terrorists. Here what we're doing is we're arresting individuals for entirely different purposes than terrorism. I have no problem with that. You can't do your work. That's what you've been telling us from the very start: you need more information, you can't arrest those persons for whom you have warrants. Except that what we're doing now is that, under a bill designed to arrest terrorists, we're arresting individuals for all sorts of other reasons. That's what we're doing today; we're issuing warrants to all kinds of peace officers. I find that incredible, Madam. You're telling us quite candidly that you don't know, that you're going to identify that and provide the information, regardless of who is there to make the arrests. In any case, that's your position. You're entitled to it, except that that wasn't the purpose for which the bill was written, Mr. Chairman.

º (1615)

[English]

The Chair: Is there any further debate?

[Translation]

So I put the question on amendment BQ-14.

(Amendment negatived)

[English]

The Chair: Because there's an identical amendment in CA-6, I will not put the question on that one.

We now move to the CA-7 on page 34.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

This amendment puts a seven-day time limit on the use of information for executing a warrant. It will add after proposed subsection 4.82(11) on page 15, after line 8:

A peace officer shall use the information under subsection (11) solely for the purpose of executing a warrant, and any information not used for this purpose shall be destroyed within seven days after it is provided or obtained.

The Chair: Monsieur Proulx.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: We will not support this amendment, as it does not support investigative and accountability responsibilities of peace officers.

The Chair: Ms. Desjarlais.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Again, if we accept that information is only going to be used for transportation security, why on earth would there be a need for this information to be kept if there hasn't been a need for a warrant to be issued for further investigation?

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Roy.

M. Christian Roy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The idea is that once the information is disclosed and is given, say, to a local police force, the information will be used in execution of the warrant, but the information may then be required for future court purposes that relate to the action taken by the peace officer as a result of having received that information. Information obtained in this context would likely be of relevance in any related or ensuing prosecutions and would have to be disclosed to the defence. So if there were a requirement for the seven-day destruction, you wouldn't be able to follow through on that. That is what is referred to with the accountability requirements.

The Chair: Ms. Desjarlais.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: I guess my only satisfaction will be seeing how they implement all this.

The Chair: Mr. Lunn.

Mr. Gary Lunn: I just want to clarify the answers. The reason you will not allow this amendment that calls for it to be destroyed after it's provided or obtained is that you may need it for disclosure to the defence. Is that what I heard?

Mr. Christian Roy: If information is received from the airline by the designated officer, and in looking for transportation security or national security threats, he finds out that the passenger in question has a warrant against his person in a given municipality, he discloses that information, and the local police act on that information, but then have to destroy the information within seven days. It puts them in a difficult position in defending their actions should they be challenged.

Mr. Gary Lunn: But I would suggest that's not what this is doing at all. Obviously, if you act on a warrant, you have to keep that information and they have to disclose it to the accused by law. This says a peace officer shall use the information solely for the person who's executing the warrant, and any information not used for this purpose--so it's not talking about stuff that is used, but about information that is not used--shall be destroyed within seven days. We're not talking about the stuff that is used to execute a warrant, because they have to disclose that. It's about this information that is not used, which should be destroyed. So your explanation's really not consistent with what's written at all.

º (1620)

Mr. Christian Roy: It's just that disclosure requirements in the criminal court context require that all the information in possession of the Crown or of the police, in this case, needs to be disclosed. It's not necessarily just what you use in the context of an investigation.

Mr. Gary Lunn: I understand that. I'm a lawyer and I'm fully aware of the disclosure requirements, but this very clearly states, “A peace officer shall use the information under subsection (11) solely for the purpose of executing the warrant, and any other information not used for this purpose shall be destroyed within seven days” So we're not talking about the stuff that's used for the execution of the warrant, because that clearly would have to be disclosed to the person the warrant's being executed on, but the information that's not being used for that purpose would not have to be disclosed, because it would be irrelevant.

Let me give you an example. Let's say they find out there's a warrant and they pass it on to a peace officer, he executes that warrant. You're not going to go to that person who has now been arrested because there's a warrant out on them and give them the names of everybody on the airline, their credit card numbers, what they ate, who they were sitting beside, as it's irrelevant. The only thing you would give them is their specific information that was passed on by the airline. So we're asking for all the other information, if it's not used, to be destroyed within seven days. Why would you want to disclose the entire passenger list to the person who has had a warranted executed on them? You wouldn't do that.

Mr. Christian Roy: No one is suggesting that the entire passenger name record or the 30-some data elements highlighted in the schedule would be disclosed to the local police.

Mr. Gary Lunn: That's what we want to have destroyed if it's not used within seven days.

Mr. Christian Roy: I'll just get back to the actual disclosure. What would likely be disclosed is what would be necessary for executing a warrant. However, if not all elements are found to be relevant by the agency receiving information, we feel that even if they don't use it in the execution of the warrant, there is a possibility that they would have to disclose it anyway. Whether they feel it's relevant or not is not necessarily important.

Mr. Gary Lunn: We'll have to agree to disagree.

The Chair: Mrs. Desjarlais.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: So I'm clear on what you're indicating, I'm a passenger on a plane, and somebody sitting beside me has a warrant issued against him. You're given all the information about all the passengers who were sitting around him or on that flight that day, and that information will be disclosed and kept and not destroyed.

Mr. Christian Roy: If you're a passenger on a flight and there's a warrant against you, the information with respect to the other passengers will not be disclosed. The scheme contemplates that it will be the passenger information related to the passenger for whom there is a warrant that would be disclosed.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: I seem to recall hearing from one of the police agencies that information might be required as to who was on the plane.

Mr. Christian Roy: The full passenger manifest for the execution of a warrant?

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Just in case there was some connection between one passenger and another.

Mr. Christian Roy: I understood those comments to be made in the context of analysing passenger manifests for the purpose of identifying terrorists or threats to transportation security on board an aircraft, not in the context of executing warrants.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: How do we ensure that it doesn't happen if there isn't something to say, get rid of that information? Quite frankly, when this bill came forward, when it was suggested, I thought it was about transportation security and terrorism. I know that's not the case any more, so how do we ensure that information gets destroyed?

º (1625)

Ms. Marian Harymann: It is set out specifically in the disclosure provision that relates to information regarding cases involving outstanding warrants. We haven't dealt specifically with the destruction of passenger information that relates to warrant execution, because the police forces are subject to their own privacy legislation in the province and their own policies. So destruction requirements for them would be with respect to that legislation and those policies.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Are we assured that their privacy legislation meets the standards of the national privacy legislation?

Ms. Marian Harymann: They are subject to their own provincial privacy laws, and they also have their provincial privacy commissioners, who are able to initiate investigations and respond to any complaints. It's the same thing as we have at the federal level, to ensure compliance with their privacy legislation.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Mr. Chair, with all due respect, in light of that statement, I don't know how we can even continue discussion on this without having delved into the privacy legislation of each and every province to ensure that we're protecting the privacy of Canadians as a whole under this legislation. We certainly haven't done that. It hasn't come up until this point. It greatly concerns me that such would be the case.

The Chair: Monsieur Laframboise.

[Translation]

Mr. Mario Laframboise: Mr. Chairman, my colleague has asked the right questions, and it surprises me that Mr. Roy has given those answers. The word “terrorist” is mentioned nowhere in this bill, Mr. Roy. It talks about “transportation security”. That's what's written. The information is retained because it “is relevant to transportation security”.

You're telling us that you can retain information on other passengers if ever there are terrorists on board, but I believe you're going to retain information on passengers if there is ever a threat to transportation security, and that's where we have a problem and where the Canadian Bar Association has a problem.

The threat to transportation security may be air rage or the fact that a member of organized crime is on board an aircraft. And here you're telling me that information won't be retained on other persons if there is a person on board who has an outstanding warrant. But what's going to be done if there's a member of an organized group who you deem may be a threat to transportation security because he's someone violent? Are you going to retain the information on all the passengers in the aircraft? I believe so, that that's exactly what you're going to do. That's what we've been trying to tell you from the start. Your objective isn't to arrest terrorists; it's to try to create a data base on all those who come into contact with people who can jeopardize transportation security.

That's where we have a problem, where the Canadian Bar Association has a problem, and that's why we're asking you for amendments. And I understand my Canadian Alliance colleague who is telling you to use it exclusively for warrant purposes. But what you want to do is to use it for all other purposes, mainly not for warrants. That's the problem.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Lunn.

Mr. Gary Lunn: I have to admit that this amendment, CA-7, was drafted by my colleague from Port Moody. I wasn't 100% sure of it, but after listening to the witnesses, I'm absolutely convinced that we need it. This is a really critical issue, and I want to come back to it.

What I'm hearing from the witness--and I want him to confirm this for me--is that the reason you don't believe we should be destroying this information within seven days if it hasn't been used for the execution of a warrant is that you may need to disclose it to the person a warrant was executed on. Is that correct? Are you saying you may need to use this information because of the disclosure requirements?

Mr. Christian Roy: That would be one of the reasons, but it's not necessarily just in the context of a criminal case. It could be in the context of a civil suit, for instance, if someone is arrested and the police have to defend their actions. Say the wrong person is arrested and there's a civil suit, you need the ability to demonstrate the information on which you were acting at the time of the actual execution of the warrant. If I understand your suggestion, you're saying, you take what you use at the time of the execution of the warrant and you destroy the rest. In the context of defending the police force against a civil suit, you may want to have the full record to assist in justifying your decisions.

º (1630)

The Chair: Mr. Lunn.

Mr. Gary Lunn: I have to absolutely disagree. You could have a warrant in every single flight, which means you're going to keep every single bit of information. I'm not disputing that you have to keep the pertinent information with respect to that warrant alone, but anything that was not used, I would have to respectfully suggest, should be destroyed within seven days. I do not accept the witness's answer.

The Chair: Mr. Roy.

Mr. Christian Roy: I draw the member's attention also to the wording of proposed subsection 4.82(11), which requires the designated person to essentially limit his disclosure to information that would assist in the execution of the warrant. When we developed this, we anticipated that what would be disclosed would not be, for instance, the seating arrangement and the full PNR or the data elements that are identified in the schedule to the act, but would be the actual information the designated person feels would be relevant to the executing police force. So there are already limits on the amount of information being given.

The Chair: Mrs. Desjarlais.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: The witness brought forth another issue that never came out in the course of our hearings, but certainly leads me to believe once again what's being intended is quite different from what is suggested, by bringing in the fact that we have to keep all this information in case there's a civil suit against the police force. I don't recall the whole issue of civil liability or anything like that coming up at any of our discussions. We are dealing with a bill that was specifically to relate to information needed for transportation security and terrorism, and now we're talking about how we've got to keep all this information just in case one of the police forces does something wrong and there might be a civil suit. You made the comment, I didn't, and I'm not trying to catch you. It's the first time it's come up, and it increases the concern I have over the retention of this information, because you lead me to believe it's never going to go away.

The Chair: Mr. Roy.

Mr. Christian Roy: To ensure that my comments are understood in the proper context, I'm certainly not referring to retention of a full passenger manifest or all the data elements collected on a specific passenger. I am talking about retention of information by the police who receive passenger information, who are informed, for instance, by an RCMP designated person that passenger X will be arriving at Halifax airport, for instance, on such a date, at such an hour, on such a flight.

The Chair: Mr. Lunn.

Mr. Gary Lunn: I hear what you're saying. You're not looking to disclose all that other information, correct? Well, that's exactly what my amendment says, that any information not used for the execution of the warrant shall be destroyed within seven days. We're not asking for any of the information that's used with respect to the warrant to be destroyed, we're only asking for everything else to be destroyed, information you're not going to disclose. So you're almost advocating why you should support this bill.

Further, with respect to civil suits, there are no disclosure requirements.

The Chair: Is there further debate?

(Amendment negatived)

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Laframboise, you may introduce amendment BQ-16. Just for your information, Mr. Laframboise, amendment BQ-15 was negatived. So let's look at amendment BQ-16.

º (1635)

Mr. Mario Laframboise: This is amendment BQ-15, on page 13 of the documents, which concerns page 15 of the bill, lines 32 and 33, where reference is made to the destruction of information within seven days after it is provided or obtained.

I move that Bill C-17, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing lines 32 and 33 on page 15 with the following:

within 24 hours after the landing of the aircraft in respect of which the information is provided or disclosed, unless it is reasonably required for

So this is consistent with what we've been proposing from the very start, Mr. Chairman, because, if we have seven days to disclose information, it is disclosed once; questions are asked again, it is disclosed a second time, and it never stops. The seven days last as long as parties are talking to each other, as a result of which, once again, people who are travelling for pleasure could have their nice trip ruined because, somewhere, zealous officials have decided to disclose information to other agencies in the country, other organizations.

All we want is for information to be destroyed within 24 hours of the landing of the aircraft.

The Chair: Mr. Proulx.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We heard and were told that that was unthinkable, since the seven-day time period is the shortest period that can be used by the RCMP and the intelligence services. So we're going to oppose this amendment.

The Chair: Mr. Laframboise.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: Let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, that the more I think of it, the more I think the seven-day period is not the shortest one; it's the longest. With seven days to disclose information, don't worry: knowing them, they take a long time to disclose. That's definitely going to be the longest period you've ever had.

The Chair: Are there any other comments?

So I put Bloc québécois amendment 16 to a vote.

[English]

(Amendment negatived)

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Laframboise, please introduce the Bloc québécois' amendment 17.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: The amendment concerns line 41 on page 15. We're still talking about information obtained, and, at the end of subclause 4.82(14), it states: “in which case a record must be prepared and kept setting out the reasons why the information is being retained”. We would like to add what the Privacy Commissioner requested.

I move that Bill C-17, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing line 41 on page 15 with the following:

being retained, and a copy of the record must be provided within seven days to the Privacy Commissioner, unless the Privacy Commissioner waives this requirement by giving written notice to the Commissioner or the Director.

Clearly, as you have understood, and I hope you won't be opposed to the seven-day period. You seem to have been defending this seven-day period from the very start. However, we want the Privacy Commissioner to be able to be the independent third party, and that's his request. Stop telling us that he has that power. He doesn't have that power, and he would like to have it conferred on him. We think that, to protect the interests of Canadians and Quebeckers, it's better that there be a third party who is more independent and can intervene because the way they want to retain information at CSIS and the RCMP is disturbing, and this would enable us to allay citizens' concerns.

The Chair: Mr. Proulx.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: I would like to remind my colleague, Mr. Laframboise, that experts from the Department of the Solicitor General told us earlier that the Privacy Commissioner had all those powers. He has access to all the information under the control of the RCMP and CSIS. So if you want further information, we're going to ask the experts from the Department of the Solicitor General to repeat their explanations.

The Chair: Mr. Laframboise.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: I must just mention that I don't believe that the Commissioner has the power to receive a copy of the reasons within the seven days. I don't believe that that's a power he currently has.

[English]

Ms. Marian Harymann: If I may begin, under subsection 34(2) of the Privacy Act the Privacy Commissioner already has the power to compel any record under the control of a government institution.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Laframboise.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: What I want to know is whether the Privacy Commissioner sends you an instruction so that, every time you retain information, a copy of the reasons given is given to him within seven days.

Are you going to grant my request?

º (1640)

The Chair: Mr. Roy.

Mr. Christian Roy: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to repeat what my colleague said, that is to say that, when he initiates an investigation at his own initiative, the Privacy Commissioner has the same powers as if he were conducting an investigation in the context of a complaint filed with him. In that context, he may require that documents he deems relevant to his investigation be produced.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: Mr. Chairman, what I want to know is, if the Privacy Commissioner sent an instruction to the RCMP or CSIS requiring them to automatically send him a copy of the reasons every time subclause 4.82(14) was applied and information was being retained, would the RCMP and CSIS comply? That's what I want to know.

M. Christian Roy: Mr. Chairman, I don't have a mandate to make commitments for the Commissioner of the RCMP and the Director of CSIS. All I can do is inform the committee of the powers the Privacy Commissioner has.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: So, Mr. Chairman, I maintain that the Privacy Commissioner does not automatically have that power; that was clear in the remarks he made. He said that he needed it and that he hoped it would be included in the bill. I ask my colleagues to revise their positions and to clearly and transparently confer on him this power which no one can confirm for us that he has under these enabling statutes.

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Desjarlais.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: You say the Privacy Commissioner has the right to secure any information from a government department. Is it possible that information would be given to an agency that is not a government department, and the Privacy Commissioner could not accept that information?

Mr. Christian Roy: The RCMP and CSIS are subject to the Privacy Act and the privacy provisions in proposed section 4.82.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: It's my understanding that there is contracting out of services to other agencies that may not be directly under a government department.

Mr. Christian Roy: In this context, under proposed section 4.82, the scheme contemplates that the information would be collected by the RCMP and CSIS and thus be under the control of the RCMP and CSIS and subject to the Privacy Commissioner's review.

[Translation]

Le président: I put the question on amendment BQ-17.

[English]

(Amendment negatived)

[Translation]

Mr. Laframboise, amendment 18.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: Amendment BQ-18 affects subsection 15 on page 16 of the bill, which reads as follows:

At least once a year, the Commissioner and the Director must cause a review to be undertaken of all information retained under subsection (14) by persons designated by them, and the Commissioner, or the Director, as the case may be, must order the information to be destroyed if he or she is of the opinion that its continued retention is not justified. The Commissioner and the Director must each keep a record of their review.

I move that Bill C-17, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing line 4 on page 16 with the following:

that its continued retention is no longer required for the purposes of transportation security or the investigation of “threats to the security of Canada” referred to in paragraph (c) of the definition of that expression in section 2 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act. The

To state clearly that continued retention is no longer required for the purposes of transportation security or an investigation under statutes under which regulations are made and that it be possible to refrain from retaining information under the statutes referred to in the bill.

º (1645)

The Chair: Mr. Proulx.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Mr. Chairman, am I to understand from Mr. Laframboise that he is substituting the new wording that was submitted under amendment BQ-18 for the wording submitted in amendment G-5? It is our intention to say that amendment G-5 would be clearer and that it would be more acceptable to us than the wording of amendment BQ-18. And I believe it meets Mr. Laframboise's expectations.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: It's clearer in any case.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: From this side of the table, it's clearer. From your side, I don't know.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: That's because you wrote it.

The Chair: Mrs. Desjarlais.

[English]

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: The wording is so clear in G-5, since we're sort of discussing it. Could someone give me the definition of what “reasonably” will entail, since it's really the only difference I see between the two? Could someone tell me what the scope of “reasonably” will be?

[Translation]

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Roy should be able to answer that question.

[English]

Mr. Christian Roy: Essentially, you would be required to establish a nexus between the information, to be able to demonstrate that it is reasonably required for transportation security purposes. It would mean it is possible objectively to demonstrate that there is a link.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: I guess what I'm wanting is the difference between having “reasonably” in there and not having it in there. I see that as the only difference between the two motions, so I'm curious what the difference would be.

Mr. Christian Roy: Okay. I'm sorry.

The government motion includes the word reasonably because we understood the intent of the CBA in raising this issue was to mirror the wording in proposed subsection (14), which includes the word reasonably. That's why we suggest including “reasonably” in proposed subsection (15) now, so that the two provisions can be as consistent as possible.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Am I to understand that you're only putting “reasonably” in there because it was recommended by the Canadian Bar Association? I'm curious as to why you haven't taken their recommendations elsewhere.

Mr. Christian Roy: Our intention was to make the two provisions as consistent as possible, and because the word reasonably is found in proposed subsection (14), we believe it should also be found in subsection (15), to ensure that it does not lead to discrepancies in interpretation.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Laframboise.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: I believe that, far from making the text clearer, the expression “reasonably required” strays from the objective. Because, as you know, subclause 15, in the version proposed by the government stated “not justified”. Here now, it says “is not reasonably required”. But the objective was to say that...

We say “is no longer required”. When you no longer need it, it's clear: you destroy it. It's no more difficult than that. When you add “reasonably required”, that's another way of trying to say that we might be obliged to retain it nevertheless.

I have a lot of difficulty with the transparency of the RCMP and CSIS.

Le président: Debate?

[English]

(Amendment negatived)

[Translation]

Mr. Proulx, amendment G-5.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Amendment G-5.

Le président: We've already discussed it, but all the same.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: I just want to remind Mr. Laframboise that, from this side of the table, we think it's much clearer.

From the other side of the table, I'm not sure that it's not quite a bit clearer. But let's vote!

º (1650)

[English]

The Chair: Is there any further debate on G-5?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: NDP-8 on page 40 has already been negatived.

(Clause 5 as amended agreed to)

(Clause 6 agreed to)

(On clause 7)

The Chair: We have amendment G-6 on page 43. Monsieur Proulx.

[Translation]

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I move that Bill C-17, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing lines 18 and 19 on page 17 with the following:

4.84 The Minister may designate, in writing, persons to conduct screenings, subject to any restrictions or conditions that the Minister may specify.

As a result of the amendment, the minister may establish restrictions or conditions in respect of a person who is designated to conduct screenings.

We think that the minister must be empowered to decide which persons may be designated.

[English]

The Chair: If there's no debate, I'll put the question on G-6.

(Amendment agreed to)

[Translation]

The Chair: Amendments G-7 and G-8 have previously been agreed to.

[English]

(Clause 7 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to)

(On clause 10)

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Laframboise, amendment BQ-19, on page 46.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As you will see, our amendment concerns the general provisions on regulations, orders and so on. On page 20, line 12, reference is made to emergency directions, which are exempt from the application of sections 3, 5 and 11 of the Statutory Instruments Act. We can accept that emergency directions are exempt from the application of section 3. I'm going to take the time to read it to you. Section 3 of the Statutory Instruments Act reads as follows:

3.(1) Subject to any regulations made pursuant to paragraph 20(a), where a regulation-making authority proposes to make a regulation, it shall cause to be forwarded to the Clerk of the Privy Council three copies of the proposed regulation in both official languages.

It then states:

(2) On receipt by the Clerk of the Privy Council of copies of a proposed regulation pursuant to subsection 1, the Clerk of the Privy Council, in consultation with the Deputy Minister of Justice, shall examine the proposed regulation to ensure that

Mr. Chairman, I know you are quite familiar with the Statutory Instruments Act. I draw your attention to section 5:

5.(1) Subject to any regulations made pursuant to paragraph 20(b), every regulation-making authority shall, within seven days after making a regulation, transmit copies of the regulation in both official languages to the Clerk of the Privy Council for registration pursuant to section 6.

As you might expect, we understand that there is no time to translate a regulation into both official languages from the moment it is tabled. However, we are not troubled by any failure to translate regulations within the seven-day period. In addition, subsection 5(2) reads as follows:

(2) One copy of each of the official language versions of each regulation that is transmitted to the Clerk of the Privy Council pursuant to subsection (1), other than a regulation made or approved by the Governor in Council, shall be certified by the regulation-making authority to be a true copy thereof.

You will have guessed that we are focusing on this element. Section 11 reads as follows:

11.(1) Subject to any regulations made pursuant to paragraph 20(c), every regulation shall be published in the Canada Gazette within twenty-three days after copies thereof are registered pursuant to section 6.

So we would agree that the texts of emergency directions should be consistent with section 3.

I move that Bill C-17, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing line 12 on page 20 with the following:

application of sections 5 and 11 of the

I therefore hope to delete the reference to section 3. I hope to retain sections 5 and 11 and delete section 3. Excuse me, in fact, it's the reverse. It's section 3 that requires that the regulation be consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights. That was our objective. If we delete section 3, that means it is no longer mandatory that the regulation be consistent with the Charter of Rights and FreedoMrs. We clearly want to ensure that all emergency directions that would be similar to regulations be subject to section 3. That's it, isn't it?

º (1655)

[English]

The Chair: Monsieur Proulx.

[Translation]

Mr. Marcel Proulx: What did you mean?

Mr. Mario Laframboise: I would like to delete the reference to sections 5 and 11 from the text.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: I believe your amendment rather mentions the deletion of the reference to section 3, while retaining the references to sections 5 and 11.

Mr. Chairman, I must say that we can't support this amendment. In our opinion, it would mean that emergency directions would no longer be required to be consistent with the Charter, which is not acceptable. Emergency directions must be consistent with the Charter. Since emergency directions might have to be prepared and issued in a few minutes, it would then have to be seen whether they are consistent with the provisions of the Charter. May I ask Mr. Read or Mrs. Besser to continue by giving us some technical explanations?

Mr. Mario Laframboise: Excuse me, I believe it's the contrary, that is to say that they are exempt from the application of sections 5 and 11. We're saying that they would be exempt from the application of sections 5 and 11, and that would mean that they would be required to comply with section 3.

Let's get this straight. When we exempt them from the application of sections 3, 5 and 11 of the Statutory Instruments Act, we exempt them from compliance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and FreedoMrs. We would be accepting that they would be exempt from sections 5 and 11, but not that they would be exempt from the application of section 3. That's what I mean in the text.

The Chair: I'm going to ask Mr. Read to make a few comments, and we'll come back to you.

Mr. Read.

[English]

Mr. John Read: The important consideration here is that we're dealing with interim orders, and there was a great deal of discussion on the intense importance we were placing on being able to act within minutes. We gave the example of how many planes entered our airspace per minute. One of the obstacles, if we can use that strenuous word inappropriately, was standing back while all these steps were passed through. So it was a question of timing. We said, we need to do this immediately, we have these steps to follow, and the point that is very critical here is that not being examined does not mean you can go against these. In fact, there is no advantage to us in having done something that would be contrary to the charter. It would fall immediately. We must be in compliance with the charter, we must be authorized by the statute pursuant to which it is being made, we must not constitute an unusual or unexpected use of the authority, etc. We must satisfy all these conditions. Whether or not someone has checked for that very reason, we still must be in compliance.

But the critical factor I go back to here is that the interim order is for something totally unexpected, for which we could have made a regulation. As we have said before, if we knew the problem, we would make the regulation. This is for something unique. If it arises, we must move rapidly. We are not in any way diminishing our obligations to respect the charter, the Bill of Rights, all the conditions that stand here.

» (1700)

Mrs. Sherill Besser: If I may add something, the Statutory Instruments Act is a procedural act. Section 3 of the act does not create any substantive rights. It says the clerk examines statutory instruments to ensure that they comply with the charter. The obligation to comply with the charter is not found in the Statutory Instruments Act, it's found in section 24 of the charter, which says it applies to any act of the Government of Canada, and so the charter would apply, regardless of section 3, to any instrument.

[Translation]

Mr. Mario Laframboise: Mr. Chairman, I would like us to get this straight. Sections 5 and 11 state mandatory deadlines for publishing regulations in the Canada Gazette. We agree to abolish this entire question of deadlines and that we comply with the deadlines stated in the regulation. But I want us to review section 3 together. Section 3 of the Statutory Instruments Act states:

(1) Subject to any regulations made pursuant to paragraph 20(a), where a regulation-making authority proposes to make a regulation, it shall cause to be forwarded to the Clerk of the Privy Council three copies of the proposed regulation in both official languages.

Here I at least hope that you won't refuse to issue regulations in both languages so that people can read them. I hope.

I agree with you that he merely examines, but at least an examination is done by the Deputy Minister of Justice:

(a) it is authorized by the statute pursuant to which it is to be made;

(b) it does not constitute an unusual or unexpected use of the authority pursuant to which it is to be made;

(c) it does not trespass unduly on existing rights and freedoms and is not, in any case, inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights; and

(d) the form and draftsmanship of the proposed regulation are in accordance with established standards.

(3) When a proposed regulation has been examined as required by subsection 2, the Clerk of the Privy Council shall advise the regulation-making authority that the proposed regulation has been so examined and shall indicate any matter referred to in paragraph 2(a), (b), (c) or (d) to which...

So you must first ensure that the regulations are drafted in both official languages and that the Deputy Minister of Justice has examined them to ensure that they are authorized by their enabling statutes. I always cite the example of what would happen if you had done this when you ordered those drugs from the company. If you ever make an order and realize that orders have been made and you are violating the Patent Act, at least you'll be able to examine them beforehand, because, otherwise, that confers powers, and the powers to override all statutes are often given to officials.

I don't think drafting them in both languages then immediately sending them to the deputy minister for him to confirm that they are consistent is an impediment. That doesn't take an eternity. What does take an eternity is the requirement of consistency for the rest of the regulatory instruments, which must be consistent in English and in French, and the obligation to publish them in the Canada Gazette. We agree that that should be deleted, but I think it would be the least we could do to continue complying with section 3.

If you're telling us that that causes you a lot of problems, I will answer that you already have the Emergency Measures Act, which allows you to do a lot of things. Moreover, since September 11, you have used that act to do many things. All we want is for emergency directions to be at least consistent with minimum standards in both languages, and that the Deputy Minister of Justice go over them to ensure they are consistent with the statutes under which they are being made and the Canadian Charter of Rights and FreedoMrs. Here you're telling us you no longer want this. So you're going to draft them yourselves? I don't believe it!

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Read.

Mr. John Read: To go back to the point on time, the statistic we gave you was that every two minutes three airplanes enter Canadian airspace. If that event had happened late Saturday night, we would not have been able to get to the people required under section 3--if we were very good, maybe in a matter of hours, probably a matter of days. The whole point of an interim order is for something unforeseen when we need immediate action, and I mean immediate action. I don't mean minutes during a working day, I mean minutes, maybe, on a holiday, which is a good time for a terrorist to launch an attack. So the critical factor here is timing.

With respect to the Emergency Measures Act, that also is very slow. That requires consultation with the lieutenant governor of the province concerned etc. It's been established to deal with natural occurrences and so forth. It's also much too slow.

We discovered that in order to conduct our activities, we need to be prepared for something we cannot foresee, to be able to put in place such an interim order. I remind you that this can only be done by the Minister or Deputy Minister of Transport. It cannot be done by a fonctionnaire, as you have said.

» (1705)

The Chair: Monsieur Laframboise.

[Translation]

Mr. Mario Laframboise: Mr. Chairman, I want us to get this straight. If we delete the obligation to comply with sections 3, 5 and 11, first, that will no longer require you to draft your regulatory instruments in both languages. I'm sorry, but that's the truth. That means that you can draft them in English only, with all the impact that that can have in areas where there are only Francophone populations who can read them. There's a limit to human stupidity. Section 3 at least requires you to draft them in both languages.

Second, there's no deadline for sending instruments to the deputy minister. It's not stated that he must answer you within 48 hours. All that section 3 tells you is to send them to the deputy minister, who checks to see whether they are consistent with the statute under which they are made and the Canadian Charter of Rights and FreedoMrs. He gives you a quick response and it's done. You can do that in a single day. Don't tell me you can't do that, in an emergency, with the Department of Justice.

We agree with you on removing the obligation to comply with sections 5 and 11, which set time periods that were not reasonable in an emergency, but I think it's simple logic to comply with section 3, that is to say to draft regulatory instruments in both languages and to ensure they are consistent with the statutes under which they are made and with the Canadian Charter of Rights and FreedoMrs.

I agree with you that it's only a little checking test with the Deputy Minister of Justice, but for the public's safety, it's an important test.

[English]

Mr. John Read: This is not only, as you now agree, a test of whether or not we have complied. The other side is that the necessity for us to comply with the Official Languages Act and with the charter does not come from section 3, it comes from other requirements, and if we were to issue an interim order, you can be absolutely positive that it would be bilingual. There would be no hesitation, no question on that matter. In addition, it would be in compliance with the charter, to the best of our knowledge and abilities, and I assume it would be absolutely correct when we had finished.

Again, the critical factor here is that an interim order must be effected with the shortest delay possible, and a delay of two hours when we were dealing with the aircraft arriving in Canada, that kind of a situation, would have been too much. This is an authority we hope will never be used, but we have recognized, after going through a terrorist event, that we may have the requirement to do something extremely rapidly, something we have not foreseen before. And we did not foresee that aircraft would be used as weapons. There it was, it happened. We did not foresee that five people would get on a aircraft and decide to commit suicide. Those thoughts had not entered our minds, and we came across a situation where we needed to act fast. In this particular instance we actually had the authority to close airspace, which was the critical factor, and we could do it instantly under the current act, but we recognize that there are other things that maybe we would have had to do we didn't have the authority for, and that's why we have now the concept of an interim order, which, as you know, is in several acts now, because there is the recognition that you may need to act within minutes, not hours.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Laframboise.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: I'm sorry, I don't believe you. These are regulations, and regulations are made under the Statutory Instruments Act. You can tell us all you want that you're going to draft them in both languages, when you've written them in only one language, you will tell us it's by virtue of the fact that you aren't required to comply with sections 3, 5 and 11 of the Statutory Instruments Act.

I'm sorry, but that's a regulation you're making. It's not a statute enacted in Parliament; it's a regulation you're making. So you're governed by the Statutory Instruments Act, and there is a section, section 3, requiring you to draft your instruments in both languages and to have them screened by the Deputy Minister of Justice, and I'm sure that when emergency measures have to be taken, the Deputy Minister of Justice will be entirely at your disposition that same day.

I don't understand your obstinacy in not wanting to comply with section 3 of the Statutory Instruments Act. I don't understand; I have a great deal of difficulty.

» (1710)

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Besser.

Mrs. Sherill Besser: The requirements in respect of official languages are found in the Official Languages Act. In particular, section 7 of that act requires legislative instruments to be made in both official languages. Again, the Statutory Instruments Act does not contain the requirement, it's strictly procedural.

The Chair: Ms. Desjarlais.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Am I to understand that the reason you want to exempt this is that you don't feel you will have the opportunity to issue orders in both languages?

Mr. John Read: No, absolutely not, that is not the reason. If we do orders, they will be in both languages. We wish to sidestep this because it will take too long.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Specifically, what aspect will take too long? I guess you might have to, for the sake of everyone here, explain section 3 of the Statutory Instruments Act.

Mr. John Read: It's subsection (2), which says:

On receipt by the Clerk of the Privy Council of copies...the Clerk of the Privy Council, in consultation with the Deputy Minister of Justice, shall examine the proposed regulation to ensure that

There are then five conditions, which we've just discussed. It's authorized by the statute. So for that to take place, the document has to be put in front of these people and these people must examine it. Subsection (3) says:

When a proposed regulation has been examined as required by subsection (2), the Clerk of the Privy Council shall advise the regulation-making authority that the proposed regulation has been so examined and shall indicate any matter referred to in paragraph (2)(a), (b), (c) or (d) to which, in the opinion of the Deputy Minister of Justice, based on that examination, the attention of the regulation-making authority should be drawn.

So there are four subsections we must respect. The problem here is not producing the document in both languages. That will be done before we can even use the document and will happen as rapidly as we can make it happen. It is then bringing that to the clerk, who may not be here, if it's a weekend, and the clerk contacting the Deputy Minister of Justice, who may not be available immediately. They must then go through the four conditions they must test this against and come back and tell us whether it satisfies these conditions or not, and then we could proceed. That is a process that cannot be done within two hours, and that's our problem.

Again, to finish on that, those four tests that are examined here we must comply with anyway, whether examined or not.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Specifically on September 11, what aspect of section 3 were you not able to comply with?

Mr. John Read: On September 11 we closed the airspace using a provision that does already exist in the Aeronautics Act, which allows the deputy minister or the minister to do that immediately. In fact, the minister closed the airspace. So we actually had a form of interim order already in the Aeronautics Act that would allow us to do something dramatic immediately, but having seen that, we recognized that there are other matters we may have wanted to do immediately that we could not have done, and that is what was brought home to all the departments. The other departmental acts are not there just to obviate September 11 conditions, but they're to recognize that there are other things for which we may need very rapid action.

Mrs. Sherill Besser: The existing Aeronautics Act precludes from examination under section 3 and registration under section 5 and publication under section 11 of the Statutory Instruments Act orders restricting the use of airspace. So the orders that were made on September 11 were not subject to examination. That's subsection 6.2(1).

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: I acknowledge that. That's why I'm wondering why we have to go this route.

The Chair: Is there any further debate?

(Amendment negatived)

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Laframboise, amendment BQ-20.

» (1715)

Mr. Mario Laframboise: Again on page 20, Mr. Chairman, I moved the deletion of lines 37 to 45:

(3) A certificate purporting to be signed by the Minister of the Secretary of the Department of Transport and stating that a notice containing the regulation, notice, security measure, emergency direction or interim order was made is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, proof that reasonable steps were taken to bring its purport to the notice of those persons likely to be affected by it.

We would have liked there to be a correspondence with section 3. However, in view of the fact that our amendment to section 3 was negatived, I'm obviously going to withdraw my amendment, Mr. Chairman.

Le président: Amendment BQ-20 is withdrawn.

Mr. Proulx, amendment G-8, on behalf of the government.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: This is amendment G-8.1, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill C-17, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing lines 38 to 45 on page 20 with the following:

Containing the regulation, notice referred to in paragraph (1)(a), security measure, emergency direction or interim order was given to persons likely to be affected by it is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, proof that notice was given to those persons.

The result of this change is that it deletes the suggested reverse burden currently referred to in the proposed subsection 6.2(3).

[English]

The Chair: I'll put the question on the amendment presented by the government.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 10 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 11)

[Translation]

The Chair: Now amendment BQ-21.

Mr. Laframboise.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: On page 21, Mr. Chairman, we propose the deletion of lines 16 to 22:

(1.1) The Minister may authorize, subject to any restrictions or conditions that the Minister may specify, any officer of the Department of Transport to make, for any reason referred to in any of paragraphs (1)(a) to (c), an interim order that contains any provision that may be contained in a regulation made under this Part.

Mr. Chairman, I explained to you earlier why we wanted section 3 of the Statutory Instruments Act to be maintained, all the more so if the minister delegates to officials, who are not accountable to any citizen of Quebec or Canada, authority to make regulations without complying with the Statutory Instruments Act. That's quite something, Mr. Chairman.

That's why we're asking to completely delete subsection (1.1), which authorizes officials to make interim orders. Imagine: earlier we were told that the matter was too complicated and that people would not be on site during weekends and so on. But what we're being told now is that, if an emergency arises and the minister isn't around, officials are going to make the decision in his place. I can't believe it.

We therefore maintain our position, which is that we should simply delete subsection (1.1), which authorizes officials of the Department of Transport to make interim orders. We must hope the minister makes them himself.

» (1720)

Le président: Mr. Proulx.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I understand Mr. Laframboise's wishes. However, I believe we will agree that it wouldn't be reasonable to limit authority to one person, since that person could easily not be available at all times, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

For that reason, we cannot support the amendment. However, if Mr. Laframboise wanted to examine amendment G-9, with your permission, sir...

Mr. Mario Laframboise: We shouldn't mix things up.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: No, except that amendment G-9 will theoretically solve the problem Mr. Laframboise raises, but in a manner...

Mr. Mario Laframboise: That's what you wish.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: I'm convinced, Mr. Chairman, that it will solve it in a much more reasonable manner. Lastly, with regard to amendment BQ-21, we will have to oppose it.

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Desjarlais.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Not having seen what's coming up in the future, I would agree with Monsieur Laframboise that what appears to be happening here is a derogation of ministerial duty. I would be quite accepting if it said a reasonable attempt was made to reach the minister, as then someone else could come in, but not when there's a suggestion that someone may be designated to do it without a reasonable attempt being made to reach the minister. In the crucial time of a national emergency, the minister should be making the decision.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Proulx.

M. Marcel Proulx: If Mr. Laframboise and Mrs. Desjarlais examine amendment G-9, they will see that we agree that responsibility should not fall to the minister alone, but also to the deputy minister. Lastly, to come back to amendment BQ-21, we will not support it.

The Chair: Mr. Laframboise.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: I was simply asking myself the following question: what's the purpose of a parliamentary secretary if not to replace the minister when the minister is absent?

The Chair: Mr. Proulx, amendment G-9.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: I have good news for you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Laframboise; the discussion on amendment BQ-21 has convinced us that responsibility should fall not to a number of departmental officials, but rather, in addition to the minister, to the deputy minister.

Consequently, we move that Bill C-17, in Clause 11, be amended by replacing lines 18 to 26 on page 21 with the following:

may specify, by his or her deputy to make, for any reason referred to in any of paragraphs 1(a) to (c), an interim order that contains any provision that may be contained in a regulation made under this Part.

Consultation

(1.2) Before making an interim order, the Minister or deputy, as the case may be, must consult with any person or organization that the Minister or deputy considers appropriate

I'm certain that Mr. Laframboise will be able to support that amendment.

» (1725)

The Chair: Does Mr. Laframboise agree?

Is there any further debate?

[English]

(Amendment agreed to)

[Translation]

The Chair: We don't have amendment 22.

[English]

CA-8, Mr. Moore.

Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance): This is withdrawn.

The Chair: It is withdrawn.

[Translation]

Mr. Mario Laframboise: Mr. Chairman?

The Chair: Yes, Mr. Laframboise.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: You have withdrawn BQ-22.

The Chair: Mr. Roy, please.

Le greffier du comité: It's a conflict of lines. If an amendment on a specific line is agreed to, automatically, the amendment following on the same line cannot be put to a vote.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: Excuse me.

Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Desjarlais, NDP-9 on page 52.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: This amendment is to ensure that there is parliamentary oversight on interim orders. That's the general content, without going fully into it.

The Chair: Okay.

Monsieur Proulx.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: We will not support this amendment, Mr. Chair. The tabling in both Houses within two sitting days after an interim order is of no consequence when one of the two Houses is not sitting. An interim order can only be made concerning a matter for which a regulation could be made. If the interim order satisfies this criterion, there would be nothing for a committee of one of the Houses to do. Changing the regulation by making it an authority of an act would require the processing of a bill. The proposal is very elaborate to verify that the content of an interim order is within the regulatory authority of the parent act. It appears that the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations could already undertake this.

The Chair: Ms. Desjarlais.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: In a state of national emergency such that an interim order was required, I had the impression that both Houses might be able to show their faces within a couple of days to deal with it.

The Chair: I'll put the question on NDP-9.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[Translation]

Mr. Laframboise, amendment BQ-23.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: This is on page 22, subclause (5):

(5) A copy of each interim order must be tabled in each House of Parliament within 15 days after it is made.

We move that Clause 5 be amended by replacing line 2 on page 22 with the following:

tabled in each House of Parliament within 5

We propose that the time period be five days after the order is made. In other words, we propose that the period of 15 days be reduced to five days. In our view, this five-day period is reasonable and enables us to comply with parliamentary procedure.

The Chair: Mr. Proulx.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Mr. Laframboise is going to be surprised, but we're going to be obliged to object to his amendment. The explanation is that it is understood that, when an interim order is tabled, there will also be a waiting period for an analysis of that proposal and unfortunately the experts who could be in the best position to provide such an analysis would not necessarily be available.

This will surprise you, but they may not be available in the first five days of the emergency. If those people were removed or replaced in the management of that emergency, they would then become unavailable to continue their immediate duties.

Unless Mr. Read or Mrs. Besser want to add any information...

[English]

Mr. John Read: I will go back to the case of 9/11. I was the person at the situation centre. I reported verbally to the deputy, and I was exempted by the deputy from having to write any reports, do any documents, or respond to any people, simply because we were too busy. For five days we were very busy, morning, noon, and night. The deputy could report, but I, as the person sitting in the centre, and those who were reporting directly to me within the centre could not take a day or half a day, certainly didn't want to take a day or half a day, to deal with procedural matters, though we would certainly accept that the deputy could do this. This has been discussed with other departments. This is not simply a deal out of Transport. Certainly, Health Canada, which is occupied now with SARS, if it had occasion to use an interim order with respect to such an event, might find itself in a difficult position if it had to then come within five days to discuss this topic at the height of the emergency itself.

The reporting time currently is 15 days. The interim order would be tabled before each House of Parliament, and if Parliament were not sitting, it would be tabled with the clerk of the House, and within 23 days the interim order would be published in the Canada Gazette. Those two features will apply and those timeframes can be met without adversely affecting response to the kind of emergency we have in mind, wherein we would have recourse to such an important weapon as an interim order.

» (1730)

The Chair: Monsieur Laframboise.

[Translation]

Mr. Mario Laframboise: Mr. Chairman, this poses real problems for me, first of all, because the interim order won't be consistent with the regulatory instrument. What we're saying is that there's no time for red tape; that's what you said. That means that there's no time to table that before the members, in the Senate or in the House of Commons.

The orders are made by officials; their authority has been limited and that's good, but the hard reality nevertheless remains that it's going to take 15 days before anyone reads it and the emergency will be over. That's the fact of the matter; it's 15 days afterward. Forget it. Fifteen days after September 11, there was no more emergency. It was over. That means that all the decisions that have been made in that order cannot be sanctioned or questioned by Parliament; it's over.

I would like you to tell us that you think this is all red tape, but you're still making decisions that can jeopardize the interests of citizens in Quebec and Canada.

That's what you're doing. You make recommendations, you make decisions, interim orders that have force of regulation, that will come before Parliament 15 days later, when the emergency is over and all the decisions have been made. We'll be faced with a fait accompli and we'll have no choice.

I'll cite the example of the acquisition of the drugs of Apotex and company. You've bought drugs that were not patented and so on, and what you're going to is you are going to make interim orders. You're going to decide to buy and—pardon the expression—to hell with the regulations! That's all.

Then, when that comes before the House, the harm will be done; the orders will have been placed and the expenditures authorized. I find this incredible! But obviously that's the choice you make to confer power to do all that on a few individuals.

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Desjarlais.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: You did say the deputy could respond within five days, so I'm wondering why this should be an issue. I would assume that whoever within the department is dealing with it would have some discussion with the deputy. I'm not suggesting that the reports and everything have to be written, but the deputy should be able to deal with the issue. I think that's why you have deputies, and the minister as well, that they can make this submission to Parliament.

The Chair: Respectfully, we might better leave this question for the next meeting, because we do have bells ringing and the first vote is at 5:45. So we'll adjourn the meeting for today.