Bill C-12 (Historical)

Emergency Management Act

An Act to provide for emergency management and to amend and repeal certain Acts

This enactment provides for a national emergency management system that strengthens Canada’s capacity to protect Canadians.

Emergency Management Act

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

moved that Bill C-12, An Act to provide for emergency management and to amend and repeal certain Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to be here today to support the bill. I have some firsthand knowledge of emergency situations, having been a young police officer when a horrific tornado struck my community some 25 years ago and without a plan it certainly left us in dire straits.

Bill C-12 will bring much needed improvements to our existing emergency management legislation. The bill, which would create the Emergency Management Act, would strengthen the federal government's capacity to coordinate response to major emergencies.

For one thing, it would clarify the roles and responsibilities setting out the role of the Minister of Public Safety to exercise leadership for emergency management activities for the Government of Canada.

It would recognize emergency management in an evolving risk environment, and would require the collective efforts of all governments, industries and non-governmental organizations. It would also recognize that modern emergency management includes a full spectrum of action: prevention, mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery.

It would introduce the reality of critical infrastructure, which relates to the facilities and services that require protection against natural or intentional threats.

These reforms would help keep Canada's emergency preparedness and response capabilities remain in step with our fast changing threat environment.

As my hon. colleagues know, Canada's emergency management activities are currently governed under the Emergency Preparedness Act legislation that was passed in 1988.

It would be no exaggeration to say that, in the intervening 17 years, very much has changed, the kinds of threats we face, the things that are threatened, and the way we deal with those threats.

I do not want to suggest that Canadians are unprotected now. On the contrary, this new government will continue to build relationships with its partners in the provinces and territories, the private sector, NGOs, and the entire emergency management community to help protect Canadians from any and all threats.

Even so, in the modern context, there are shortcomings in the statutory foundation for emergency management activities. Addressing these issues would further strengthen the federal government's capacity to carry out its national leadership role.

In the next few minutes I will outline the important changes that the emergency management act would bring.

Canadians face a range of risks, and always have. There have always been natural disasters: storms, earthquakes, floods, fires, drought, and tornadoes, as I mentioned. However, terrorist and criminal attacks were not invented on September 11, 2001. We have always been vulnerable to people bent on doing us harm.

While risks have always been with us, the scope and magnitude has changed. Globalization, heightened world tensions, even climate change, have introduced new perils. Think only of today's anxiety about a global viral pandemic, in order to understand how quickly a local scare has the potential to evolve into a wide scale emergency.

That is why the proposed emergency management act prescribes an all hazards approach. In planning for disaster, we must consider any and all threats to our safety and security.

Just as we broaden our understanding of risk, so must we accept that a contemporary society like Canada has an unprecedented range of targets vulnerable to threats.

Emergency management has always been about protecting and rescuing people, helping to evacuate endangered communities, strengthening defences for homes and other property, as well as providing financial assistance in recovery efforts.

In that respect, nothing would change. The legislation would, however, provide the Government of Canada with a robust statutory foundation flexible enough to respond to the evolving threat environment. In particular, it would help to ensure that government address the full range of facilities and services that are critical to the smooth functioning of a modern and interconnected society.

I am referring here to critical infrastructure, everything from financial institutions and transportation systems to hospitals, manufacturing industries, waste water treatment installations and power plants. I am also including the information and communication technologies that are essential to the smooth operation of all of these other sectors.

In working toward a more comprehensive and integrated framework for emergency management activity, ministers will be required to develop emergency plans based on common guidelines.

Bill C-12 would make federal ministers explicitly accountable for identifying risks to critical infrastructure. Moreover, to encourage infrastructure owners and operators to cooperate with federal planners, the bill would for the first time protect the confidentiality of specific information concerning their vulnerabilities that was shared in confidence with the government.

In addition to the responsibilities assigned to each minister within his or her own jurisdiction, the proposed emergency management act sets out the public safety minister's responsibilities in respect of emergency management.

The bill before us would further clarify and elaborate on the minister's responsibilities in coordinating roles during times of major emergencies. As was learned from hurricane Katrina, leadership, coordination and seamless emergency management are essential to saving lives. The government operations centre that would provide around the clock monitoring and coordination in the event of an emergency would serve as a focal point for federal coordination in the event of major emergencies.

The emergency management act would set out the minister's responsibility to coordinate emergency management activities across the federal government, with provincial governments, non-governmental organizations and the private sector. In the same spirit of cooperation, the minister would also be charged with promoting a common approach to emergency preparedness. That includes encouraging all parties to work toward a common approach to critical infrastructure in terms of reliability and security.

In conclusion, when it comes to Canada's approach to emergency management, the legislation's title underscores one other vital innovation. Given the new environment in which we live under an expanded range of vulnerabilities, it is no longer enough for Canada to simply react to emergencies. Instead, we need a comprehensive systematic and proactive approach. That is why Bill C-12 is about emergency management in the broadest sense. Indeed, the bill defines the term as the prevention and mitigation of, preparedness for, response to and recovery from emergencies.

It is the duty of government to balance the need to prepare its citizens with reasonable depictions of risk so as to not unnecessarily alarm people. It is our job to describe the risk in realistic terms and more importantly to put in place the means and mechanisms to address it. That is what the bill would do and that is why I would urge my hon. colleagues to pass it without delay.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-12, An Act to provide for emergency management and to amend and repeal certain Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I can say from some personal experience as a mayor of a city that has been through a number of emergencies in the past, and I think of the September 11 landing of 14 transatlantic flights in my municipality and also an ice storm or two, that emergency preparedness is something that is very much at the centre of what people expect their governments to do. This is the theme of my question.

The legislation is well intended and, frankly, merits very close consideration. It follows on some previous proposed Liberal legislation. That is not the only reason I say it is well intended. Where the rubber hits the road is the question I have for my friend. How is it contemplated that this bill will ensure that there are coordinating efficiencies between the three levels of government?

Believe it or not, the Liberal government felt very strongly that municipalities were the third order of government. Many of them have their own emergency preparedness organization plans. My municipality did. It worked very closely with the province and in some cases the federal government. This bill talks about the capital m minister having responsibility “by coordinating, among government institutions and in cooperation with the provinces and other entities, emergency management activities”.

The question, simply put, is: How heavy is the club? How much can the federal government do to coordinate such activities over such a broad spectrum and how intrusive might it be to some of the very well thought out and good working plans in place in some of the provinces? I wonder if my friend might comment on that.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member asked an excellent question and has raised a couple of issues. Today we recognize that emergencies are not necessarily what we thought they were a number of years ago. We would not have contemplated 25 years ago that 14 aircraft landing in one community was an emergency, but we recognize today that is an emergency. There are a lot of people to be taken care of and a whole raft of issues. Being prepared for emergencies is obviously the first step and we have moved a long way, as he recognizes in his municipality.

He will also recognize that the federal government is in no position to impose its will on the other two levels of government. The provinces in most cases have requested and in some cases I expect demanded of the municipalities to prepare emergency plans, but the idea behind this bill is that the Government of Canada will be there as the senior level of government that will have a plan in place.

In fact, he is absolutely right that this is a bill that has been around and federally we have not had the umbrella that we have needed for some time. This is an updating of where we were, more importantly, to bring us into the current age with the current threats with respect to emergency preparedness. For the most part, we would welcome building with the provinces and municipalities in a total umbrella of emergency preparedness.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to my hon. colleagues' question and answer.

It is legitimate to want to consider emergency plans, because of the need to foresee as best we can situations that might arise, be it the flood we had in Lac Saint-Jean or any other similar situation that calls for a rapid reaction.

However, the parliamentary secretary's answer fuels doubts and makes one fear potential problems. Are major federal encroachments on provincial jurisdictions not to be expected? There is a clause in the bill that provides that the plan cannot be implemented without the agreement of the provinces. But this must not become a source of blackmail: because the money is in Ottawa, the other side absolutely needs it to be the key level.

That is what the parliamentary secretary's answer leads us to believe. I would like him to clarify this point, so that we can be sure that jurisdictions will be respected in establishing emergency plans.

I am not necessarily talking about every step. The global operation and planning must be carried out, taking into consideration the responsibilities at each level and ensuring that each one is in a position to assume its responsibilities under such circumstances.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if the member opposite looks at clause 3 of the act, it indicates that the minister is responsible for exercising leadership among government institutions and in cooperation with the provinces and other entities.

Clause 6(3) of the act states, “A government institution”, which is a federal government institution:

--may not respond to a provincial emergency unless the government of the province requests assistance or there is an agreement with the province that requires or permits the assistance.

The act itself is very clear that the provinces have their own autonomy. This is only to provide assistance when they request it. The act is clear in its intent that it is to provide a national framework for the federal government to work with the provinces and other entities. I do not think for one minute that the member opposite should think that the federal government would roll into his community or any other community in Canada unless it had been requested to do so by those provinces.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to engage in the debate today on the bill dealing with emergencies and the federal response to emergencies.

The bill actually replicates a bill that was introduced into the House in the last Parliament, with a couple of tweaks here and there I guess, but the bill is recognized as being needed. Those needs arise from the evolution of public awareness and government awareness that the prospect of significant emergencies and disasters, and perhaps exacerbated by the possibility of a terrorist incident that would be the equivalent of a disaster, that requires the federal government, as well as the provinces and municipalities, to be ready, able and willing to deal with these types of emergencies. They evolve out of climate change, natural disasters, just bad things that can happen in the world today.

The world media certainly make us aware of all of those things. We would like to think that Canada will be lucky and avoid the huge earthquake, the meteorite from space that drops the huge flood, the terrible hurricane and tornado, but these things do happen. It is worth noting that most of these events, when they do occur, would normally be seen as falling within provincial jurisdiction. I will address that later in my remarks because there is a practical and legal issue that arises from the bill.

However, the bill would allow the federal government to refocus and better coordinate the organization of its response to emergencies. Perhaps we can all note that there is arguably a difference between what is called an emergency and what we might regard as a security related incident. They are not always the same. Most of what the bill would deal with is emergencies involving natural disasters with some component of a man-made contribution in it.

First, I want to note the reference to the leadership and mandate of the public security emergency preparedness minister. This is a concept that the government has been slow to get to. The predecessor of the PSEP minister was the solicitor general and over time it became apparent that some federal minister had to take responsibility for a federal government response to emergencies.

In the old days, I think Canadians felt that the minister of national defence could probably handle that. Canadians have always had a feeling that its armed forces were capable of rendering assistance wherever it was really needed. The armed forces have jumped in from the beginning of Canada to assist Canadians, as have other government institutions. However, as with other things in life, emergencies and natural disasters have evolved and become more complex I suppose, and we simply needed a government minister, aside from the Department of National Defence, who could coordinate these things. Now it would be the federal minister of public safety and emergency preparedness. That is one thing the bill does.

The second thing worth noting is the imposition of a protection for private information of third parties in the hands of government. That information would have been supplied to government as part of the preparation of an emergency management plan. It really is, in my view, quite reasonable that third parties who supply that information to government to assist in the creation of an emergency management plan should have that information protected within government and not have it accessible through the Access to Information Act. That is quite a reasonable proposal and I am not aware of any difficulties in law with that.

The third thing I would like to point out relates to something I mentioned earlier. There is a provision in the bill, I believe it is clause 7(c), that allows the federal government by regulation to declare a provincial emergency to be of concern to the federal government. I take it from this that it is the intention of the bill to put a federal thumb print on what is a provincial emergency. I think the committee that looks at this bill will need to ask whether that particular provision is relying on the peace, order and good government section of our Constitution, section 91. I think it does.

Clause 7(c) involving the regulations is also related to clause 6(3) of the bill. Clause 6(3) states:

A government institution may not respond to a provincial emergency unless the government of the province requests assistance....

That seems to say that the federal government will not get itself into a provincial emergency. The wording is important because it refers to a provincial emergency. However, if the federal government, in which legislation has paramountcy to provincial legislation, has a regulation that says a provincial matter is of concern to the federal government, that matter may cease to be simply a provincial emergency and may become a matter of concern to the federal government. This is a constitutional issue and I am not too sure that the statute has made it clear in its wording and I am not too sure that we here have taken note of that implication.

The concept of the federal government declaring a provincial emergency to be of concern to the federal government should be distinguished from what we normally refer to here as aid to the civil power by the armed forces. If there is a problem, the province requests the federal government for assistance from the armed forces and the armed forces are made available to the provincial jurisdiction. That is a separate mechanism and concept from what we are dealing with here.

I suggest that the bill does create something new that should be addressed and clarified if necessary because as I stand here today I suppose I am not prepared to say that it is real clear from the statute that the intent of clause 7(c) as it interrelates with clause 6(3) is exactly the way I have described it. That has to be clarified.

What are some other issues in the bill? Clause 5 raises the matter of dealing with emergencies involving the United States of America. We have a long common border. We probably have a border with Denmark and with Russia but we certainly have enough border interface with the United States to make this a matter of concern. It does have a place in legislation. It is a picky issue perhaps but I think I should note it for the record.

Clause 5 would authorize the development of what is called a joint emergency management plan. The other clauses of the bill deal with developing emergency management plans. This clause refers to a joint emergency management plan, which is okay, but it does not say with whom the joint plan should be arranged. It just says with United States authorities. It does not mention whether it should be with state jurisdictions in the United States, municipal jurisdictions or U.S. federal agencies. It just talks about United States authorities. That may be a concept that is a little too naive for our purposes here in doing legislation. This can be looked at later as well.

However, there is another clause of the bill that deals with the making of regulations and that is on the issue of whether we have any statutory jurisdiction in the United States of America. Of course we do not. That would involve an extraterritorial application of our law. However, it would not prevent us from developing an emergency management plan, but does it involve Canada spending money, resourcing, in the United States?

Clause 7 of the bill creates the authority to make regulations and it seems to indicate that we anticipate spending money in the United States of America. For example, subclause 7(b) says regulations “respecting the use of federal civil resources in response to civil emergencies”. Does that include assistance in response to U.S.A. emergencies? If we do respond to an emergency management plan that we have developed with the U.S.A., are we just talking about the border, or are we talking Laredo, Texas on the border with Mexico? Are we talking about an emergency similar to the hurricane damage in New Orleans? Are we talking about a tsunami in Hawaii? It is not clear if there are any constraints on this extraterritorial spending of resources.

In addition, subclause 7(a) says that the government may make orders or regulations “respecting the preparation, maintenance, testing and implementation of emergency management plans”. Emergency management plans are referred to in the bill, but there is the second type of emergency management plan called the joint emergency management plan, found in clause 5, dealing with the U.S.A.

I am suggesting, on a very technical basis, that if it is intended that the minister or the governor in council make regulations about joint emergency management plans, that should also be set out in the statute. The way it is worded in the bill it is evidently a separate concept.

This too can be dealt with, if necessary, at the committee level. I am sure members would like to debate that one for 5 or 10 minutes. It is better to fix these problems now than to have a lack of clarity and have issues arise later with our American friends, or our Canadian provincial friends or our municipalities. Also, we never know when the official opposition will raise an objection to the government's actions.

Those are most of my comments on the bill.

There is a related matter of dealing with our border relations with the U.S.A.. I want to make note of that because it may have implications for the bill.

Our joint efforts with the United States include border security, intelligence gathering and counterterrorism operations. This does not always happen at the border. I would point out that although we have integrated border enforcement teams at work now through much of the Canada-U.S. border system, and those integrated border enforcement teams operate very well, do a good job and involve our police, their police, our agencies and their agencies, we also have integrated national security enforcement teams. They do not operate at the border. They operate in Canada's larger cities.

Those joint operations bring together the RCMP, CSIS, municipal and provincial police, some Canadian ministries and American representatives from the FBI, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the U.S. Border Patrol and generally now the Department of Homeland Security. These institutions and liaison people are at work in Canada, which raises issues. Just as in emergency preparedness and resourcing of cross-border emergencies, it raises issues about efficacy of spending and, in some cases, issues involving scrutiny for civil liberties.

We have not yet in the House nailed down, with precision, how we will take steps to ensure that these new constructs, put together for public safety and security, are properly operating, spending efficaciously, operating within the law and are not unduly threatening to civil liberties. This is a huge unreconnoitred piece. These new constructs have just come up in the last three or four years and we have not done our homework.

I know there was a bill in the last Parliament, Bill C-81, that had developed, with all-party consensus, support for a new construct for a committee of parliamentarians who would have access to the appropriate classified material in order to scrutinize these types of operations. That bill has not been reintroduced yet. I believe it is the intention of the minister to do so.

I and a number of members have worked hard on this envelope for a number of years and we would like to see that bill introduced quickly so Parliament may respond and get on with its important work on behalf of Canadians.

I look forward to seeing the bill referred to committee to deal with these relatively technical issues to which I have made reference, all of it being for the purpose of providing better planning, foresight and ultimately protection for Canadians for seen and unforeseen emergencies should they arise.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I note that my colleague talked about clause 5 and the relationship between Canada and the United States. He did not talk much about clause 6(2) which states:

Each minister shall include an emergency management plan

(d) in the case of war or other armed conflict, the programs, arrangements or other measures that

(ii) support the Canadian Forces and the armed forces of Canada's allies in the conduct of military operations.

(iii) contribute to meeting Canada's military and civil wartime obligations to its allies...

My understanding is that this is a Liberal bill that has been brought forward. Perhaps my hon. colleague would like to comment on the rather broad nature of that commitment to the efforts of another country's military.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take authorship of the bill, but I do want to draw the member's attention to the proviso that these clauses are there to deal with the eventuality of war or armed conflict. In the event that war or armed conflict were to evolve, this would not be the jurisdiction of the Minister of Public Safety. It would be within the jurisdiction of the cabinet, the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Foreign Affairs. This simply allows the Minister of Public Safety, in advance of any such contingency, to make appropriate planning, to put emergency plans in place for those types of contingencies that may evolve out of a war scenario.

We actually have not had one in Canada since 1812, but one cannot foresee the unforeseeable, and that is the reason for that wording. I do not see any practical eventuality that would have us engaging in an armed conflict in the North American continent that would allow the minister to deal with an internal Canadian or cross-border situation as an emergency.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, if I understood my colleague correctly, he referred to clause 5 and asked about coordinating responses with our neighbours to the south in emergency situations.

A few years ago we might not have contemplated that, but last year, with Hurricane Katrina, we had a coordination of response from our people to assist the American emergency responders. There have been other situations where a number of our utilities in Canada have assisted with Americans. I suspect there have been instances where the reverse is also true and we would expect to have their help.

Does my friend view clause 5 the same as I do, that it is a beneficial situation for both countries to be able to assist one another in states of emergency?

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yes. Most Canadians would be pretty happy to assist our American cousins in an emergency and they would expect just about the same for us from them.

The difficulty is that unless the statute takes the step to put a minister in charge of this, we will not have a person in charge of putting an emergency response plan in place. This clause would allow a particular minister here to carry out the work of preparing emergency management plans in a joint way with our American neighbours, as appropriate and when appropriate.

The issue of spending Canadian money south of the border, or west of the border if we are looking at Alaska, could be an issue, but I will leave that for another time. However, the general thrust of making plans to deal with emergencies and assisting our neighbour I am prepared to accept. The wording of the clause is pretty broad, but it would be naive to not address it in a statute like this.

The nickel and dime details about the spending and the resourcing will probably be made by cabinet, but the statute should be sufficient to at least get us on the page when these unfortunate emergencies arise.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary has already been asked the question about the relationship with municipalities under the joint emergency management plan. I take it the committee will be looking further into that. From my experience, municipalities have very comprehensive and integrated plans and they should be part of a comprehensive joint management plan.

I am sure many who are watching this debate have also been reminded that pandemics and bioterrorism are in fact very immediate risks and our constituents are very concerned. This legislation does not talk about that.

I am aware that the member has a very broad knowledge on that whole area. With respect to the matter of pandemic or bioterrorism, would he comment on whether he is satisfied that legislation comes to grips with that or should the committee broaden the investigation and the consultation on this legislation to encompass that very serious risk?

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on the issue of dealing with municipalities, the federal government realizes that municipalities are creatures of the province. Clause 4(1)(f) deals rather delicately with that in an appropriate way. It states that the federal government will coordinate the activities of government institutions relating to emergency management with those of the provinces, and supporting the emergency management activities of the provinces, and through the provinces, those of local authorities. The province is in charge.

On the second matter involving health emergencies, the member has raised a very good question. As I read the proposed bill, its wording is more than sufficient to cover emergencies that would involve health issues, a virus, a pandemic. However, I believe there is other federal legislation that would also be brought to bear in terms of those health emergencies. There are huge regulation-making authorities available to the federal government on the health risk side. The member asked a very good question and the interrelationship of the other legislation dealing with health emergencies to the present legislation which is more general perhaps should be reconnoitred by the committee to ensure there is no overlap or any discontinuity that would impair the effectiveness of this new bill.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, knowing the expertise of the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River, I would like to ask him a brief question. I know that he is a scholar, even in constitutional matters.

The summary of the bill declares the government’s intention; it says:

This enactment provides for a national emergency management system that strengthens Canada’s capacity to protect Canadians.

Is he satisfied that this bill does not encroach upon provincial jurisdictions?

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the member's question and the suggestion that there could be an impairment of provincial jurisdiction by application of some federal authority. That risk has always been here in Canada. I see from the way this statute is written that it is absolutely not the intention of the statute to do so. It is written in every case to avoid trampling on any provincial jurisdiction. It bends over backwards to avoid doing that, with the exception of the one issue I did raise, the one issue involving clause 6(3), where there is the possibility of a 7(c) practical override of clause 6(3). I will have to leave that to the committee. I do not have enough time to go back into it here.

I agree with the intent of the member's question. The bill is drafted to be sensitive to what he is suggesting. With the one exception, I think the federal jurisdiction is just fine under the Constitution.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to speak to Bill C-12. This is a moment I have been eagerly awaiting, for I am well aware that in the world in which we now live, the issue of emergencies certainly demands the attention of legislators.

Just earlier, I was pondering the fact that, even in the 1800s, people were trying to regulate emergencies with the Quarantine Act. Why did they attempt to use this act in part to regulate emergencies? Because disease was surely the greatest threat to human communities, to the human condition about which Malraux spoke to us with such talent. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you are an enthusiast of Malraux. I know your erudition, and even your epicurean side. Of course, if we are talking about the 16th, 17th or 18th centuries, the spread of disease could not possibly be compared with the SARS crisis that we experienced, for example. And for once, the federal government was in a field of jurisdiction that belonged to it alone, under a class of subject enumerated in the Constitution.

When we speak of emergencies, the word “emergency” is in itself open to many meanings. What does it mean when we speak of emergencies? Are we talking about disease, the unleashed forces of nature, public transit, natural catastrophes, the overflowing of the Red River, the pollution in the big cities, terrorist attacks? Terrorism is a real fact of our collective life.

If I may digress, for a parliament and a parliamentarian, the end can never justify the means. One can never say, on account of some context one considers extraordinary, that one is going to take certain actions prejudicial to personal freedoms. In any case, you know how the Bloc Québécois is. If there is one party in this House that could hold a set of scales in its hands, with a centre of gravity that can balance human rights with necessary protection of the community, that party is surely the Bloc Québécois. How could we not be disturbed by Bill C-24, and its successor Bill C-36 on anti-terrorist measures. The government was trying to plagiarize the previous government, and it plagiarized certain provisions of the Patriot Act, tabled by the Bush administration. Incidentally, it will be with great interest that we shall read the judgment to be rendered shortly on the security certificates.

I know that some of my caucus colleagues, and in particular our immigration and public safety critics, have a lot of reasons to be worried. I would ask you the question, Mr. Speaker. Is it acceptable, in a country that adheres to the rule of law, for a person to be subject to arrest without warrant, arbitrarily detained, and not have access to the complete evidence in his or her court file? Do we not learn in our law schools that it is important to have a just and fair trial? Are we not in the post-Stinchcombe era? The Supreme Court has given judgment on this point. My colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin is aware of that. Stinchcombe requires that all evidence be disclosed. That is surprising, because Stinchcombe involved a tax fraud matter, if I recall correctly.

In any case emergencies cover a range of situations: SARS, overflowing rivers, terrorism, or mass transit.

We know that in some democracies, the evil hand of certain groups has used mass transit to spread toxic substances. Plainly it is a concern of governments, I would even say their duty, to have evacuation and emergency plans.

Let us ask the question: is this primarily the responsibility of the federal government? That question arises in the case before us. This is not a case involving quarantine, an epidemic or virology.

The bill says:

This enactment provides for a national emergency management system that strengthens Canada’s capacity to protect Canadians.

Obviously, when we read the bill, we can say that it is reasonable for the federal government, in the departments for which that government is responsible, to have an emergency plan. We therefore understand that it is reasonable for there to be a plan for public safety, health, national defence, or any other example that my colleagues may bring to my attention.

Closer to home, I know that on Parliament Hill, the Board of Internal Economy, of which the various party whips are members, thinks about how to ensure that the Hill is safer. There have been very few unfortunate incidents, but still, there have been a few.

In fact, there is a new Sergeant-at-Arms in the House. I would like to wish him success in the responsibilities of his position. He is the person who is responsible for the safety of parliamentarians.

In the British parliamentary tradition, the distance between the opposition and the government is two and a half sword lengths. Why? Because when Parliament was first created, when the institution of Parliament was created in the United Kingdom, the monarch stood in fear of members of Parliament. That is the source of the tradition, when the Speaker is elected, of dragging him or her by the arm while being met with resistance. That is because some of the speakers, in some of the Parliaments of Great Britain, who were called burgesses, were beheaded when the king did not agree with them.

So as not to wander too far afield, let us come back to the Sergeant-at-Arms. He is responsible for parliamentarians’ safety, and in emergencies he must arrange for the Hill to be evacuated.

I would like to give you an example of a traumatic event that I experienced personally. Every member of this House is familiar with my sturdiness, physical strength and self-discipline. Then there is the President of the United States, who thinks he is the master of any house he happens to be in. When President Bush visited the Hill, some parliamentarians, including me, were not allowed access to the Hill. My colleague from Saint-Lambert was also denied access to the Hill. Why? Not because the constables prevented us from entering. After all, their kindness is known to us all. They were not the ones who denied us entry. It was security personnel outside Parliament who stopped us; they went about it quite rudely, I might add. Such events prompt us to think about how we might react in an emergency that forced us to evacuate the building rapidly.

I know that Board of Internal Economy members, including the whips, have discussed this issue.

So, yes, we have to have emergency measures in place in our large communities, especially in big cities. Emergencies can be caused by natural disasters, terrorist attacks on public transportation or, of course, disease. Obviously, we do not deal with disease as we did in the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries, but imagine the impact of a virus spreading through our communities. Even in our modern society, we have come to realize that hospitals are not always a safe haven. We do not think that going to the hospital can make us sick. I feel comfortable talking about this before the member for Québec because I know she is as healthy as a horse, but people sure do not expect to get sick when they go to the hospital.

We recently learned that some hospitals in Canada were vectors of contamination. This is one of the emergencies for which we must plan.

Although the Bloc Québécois agrees with this bill in principle, we have some concerns. First is the issue of respecting provincial responsibilities. A national emergency should never mean there is just one government. We are long past the time of the Rowell-Sirois commission. We are not in an apprehended war situation. As elected members of the Bloc Québécois, as representatives of the people of Quebec, we must never act as though there were just one government.

The National Assembly, whose first speaker was Mr. Panet—if I recall correctly—is one of the oldest Parliaments in North America. A number of years ago, it passed its own public safety plan. And who was the author of this important plan that respects decentralization, a plan whose goal was to have the regional county municipalities, the municipalities and the health care system work together? When we think of emergencies, these are the players we want to see promote a common vision.

The National Assembly was the first francophone Parliament in North America. It was led by Speaker Panet and founded under the Constitutional Act, 1791, with ministerial responsibility introduced in 1848. It used to be referred to as the Salon de la race, but that expression is no longer used. It passed its public safety plan. We are most privileged to have among us the author of the plan, none other than the hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, who was the public safety minister at the time and who served the Government of Quebec well.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

We would appreciate it if members of the government were more careful with their tributes, Mr. Speaker, but it might come back to haunt them later.

The member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin shouldered his responsibilities and suggested a plan. I repeat that we understand perfectly well that this is the federal government's responsibility, as regards its own institutions and jurisdictions. That is what federalism is. If Gérald Beaudoin and Henri Brun, two eminent constitutionalists, were here, they would tell us that federalism has three defining characteristics: first, two levels of government, each one sovereign in its areas of jurisdiction; second, a constitution; and third, a forum for arbitration. What is the forum for arbitration in a constitutional state? It is the Supreme Court, whose appointment process we hope will undergo a sweeping reform. The former member for Charlesbourg, a brilliant mind who served this House well, made a motion two years ago, if I am not mistaken, to ensure that, for example, the National Assembly could submit a list in order to respect the true spirit of federalism. The Supreme Court Act provides for civil law judges on the court. Moreover, although it is not my intention to talk about this—I would hate to be called to order—I would say that more and more, we are approaching a unitary state. This is not the spirit of federalism. There were 33 Fathers of Confederation. Thing were different then, as hon. members will recall. But we had the conviction that there were two governments, each with its own jurisdiction.

Why is there an imbalance in the Canadian federation?

For example, do you think that the residual powers—all the powers that are not specifically conferred on a government—are the responsibility of the provinces? No. The federal government has responsibility for them. The day is fast approaching when Quebeckers will decide to leave that federation, but it not my intention to talk about that.

Bill C-12 asks the federal government to adopt an emergency management plan. This plan is expected to give powers to the different ministers concerned, because it will be at their level of responsibility. Sometimes, the focus will be more on public safety, sometimes on health, sometimes on the environment. This will depend on the situation.

The bill obliges the departments to establish principles and programs to develop emergency management plans for government institutions. We can live with that. They must also provide advice to government institutions respecting emergency management plans. That is a ministerial responsibility we can live with that. Under this bill, the departments must analyze and evaluate the prepared plans. We would hope to learn more about just what that means. They must coordinate the actions of the various federal institutions in an emergency, provide financial or other assistance to provinces that need it, and establish the necessary arrangements for the continuity of constitutional government in the event of an emergency. Now, that is worrisome. I do not know if my colleague, the hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, can see the look of concern on my face, but there is something very troublesome about the mention of the constitutional government and an emergency. We all know that the most significant intrusions have occurred in times of emergency.

Take, for example, tax points. Taxation, particularly personal income tax, was not intended to be permanent. If I am not mistaken, I believe it was Adélard Godbout who was Premier of Quebec at the time, a progressive Liberal typical of his time. We are all familiar with the terror that reigned at the time of the second world war. At the time, the wartime tax rental agreement was the expression used for transferring the personal income tax. In the end, what was meant to be temporary became permanent. Thus, it is very easy to speak of emergencies in a bill, but we have a certain responsibility in this regard.

We will therefore remain vigilant about the use of the word "emergency" and we do not agree that, under the pretence of an emergency, provincial jurisdictions should be encroached upon. I believe that the hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin will have something serious to say when the bill is referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

In conclusion, I cannot help but urge caution. We live in troubled times. Is the Arar affair not a good example of the prudence that should guide us as Parliamentarians?

We know quite well that, in the wake of September 2001, security certificates can give rise to excesses. Obviously, I will make the necessary distinctions. I do not wish people to think that I am not a nuanced person. I know that the emergencies we are talking about do not specifically include terrorist attacks, although such attacks could lead the federal government to take all manner of emergency measures. That is a possibility.

I believe that our responsibility is to maintain the appropriate balance between the rights of individuals and the security of the nation. Who wants to wind up with big brother in a totalitarian state where people are arrested without a warrant, searches are carried out, individuals are thrown in jail, and the principles of natural justice are violated? The Bloc Québécois has always been extremely vigilant in its protection of these principles.

Correct me if I am wrong but I believe we were the only party to vote against Bill C-36. However, I do not wish to offend the NDP. I do not remember how they voted. My colleagues could indicate if they think I am mistaken.

I would like to conclude by saying that we agree with the principle, that we understand that emergency situations can arise, but that we hope Quebec's jurisdiction will be respected when appropriate.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I know that my colleague is interested in matters dealing with sovereignty, of course, and I would ask him how he feels about a situation that we find ourselves in.

Due to emergency measures and due to measures taken by the United States, some members of Parliament find themselves unable to get a boarding pass to get on an airplane to fly on a domestic flight within their own country because some outside agency in the United States in fact will not allow them on an airplane.

Surely this is an affront to anyone's sense of sovereignty, no matter what that sense of sovereignty might be. It is an affront. It is an insult that we are subject to American law in this regard.

The solution, of course, is not to do away with airline safety measures. The solution is to have a Canadian list of our own. Hopefully Canadian members of Parliament would not wind up on that list. Would the member agree that it would not be an intrusion of jurisdiction to have a Canadian list put in place that would take care of this real or perceived threat?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a relevant question. This is the second time that our colleague has asked it today. I understand the emotional effect this matter has on him when he talks about it, and I also understand his frustration. If we define sovereignty as being the ability to pass laws, collect taxes and decide on our foreign policy, we do not expect, in our own country, to have to put up with a series of constraints like those our colleague is talking about. The Conservative government should model itself a little on Mr. Diefenbaker, who stood up to the United States. They used to call him the lion of the Prairies.

The Liberals put up some resistance, but the current Prime Minister seems to say to the Americans, “the same bed for the same dream,” although it is not possible. The power relationship that exists between the American and the Canadian peoples means that we cannot find it acceptable for the Americans to have excessive sovereignty over Canada.

I agree with my colleague on this matter.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as we are aware, this particular bill, Bill C-12, is ostensibly identical to the bill in the last Parliament of the Liberal government, Bill C-78. Therefore, of course, the Liberal caucus will be supporting Bill C-12. It is extremely important to Canada.

The member raised some very interesting points about jurisdictional issues where there are responsibilities that have been taken over by some jurisdictions. In fact, municipalities in other parts of the country may not have had the resources or whatever was needed to do certain things. It appears to me that there does not seem to be a clear indication of how we would get an integrated, coordinated effort right across the country in terms of the responsibilities of the various jurisdictions, whether they be provincial, municipal or regional or, indeed, whether they are the jurisdiction of the federal government as a whole.

I would think that this is an area in which it is going to take some significant work by the committee to establish what is out there already and whether there are standards that have been adopted for which all of the various municipalities or regions or, for that mattter, provinces have brought their preparedness plans up to that standard. Possibly the member would indicate whether he has any similar concerns.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a relevant question. I imagine that the member was referring to subclause 7(c), whose wording is generous, not to say incredibly generic. I would be the least surprised man in the world if the member fromMarc-Aurèle-Fortin took up his pen to draft an amendment that would eliminate this sort of looseness that means that we are not entirely clear who will be ensuring leadership and coordination.

In my opinion, the Bloc Québécois might actually present an amendment like the one suggested by our colleague. I also wish to take this opportunity to congratulate him on the excellent work he has done on the issue of fetal alcohol syndrome.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot say that I could follow all of my friend's original talk on this bill, but I do know that he has some concerns about the federal government getting into provincial concerns. I for one believe that there are a lot of safety provisions here.

As much as he has always strongly supported his own province and its autonomy, I suspect that if there were a natural disaster in the province of Quebec, he would also want the federal government to be there in many ways. I am sure the member is particularly in favour of subclause 7(d) where the federal government would provide funding with the minister's authorization.

I am wondering how he squares this whole issue. If we do not have such a bill that gives authority to the federal government to do certain things, how would we end up helping his province of which he is so proud?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I said at first that we are in favour of the principle of the bill. We understand very well that there may be emergency situations, but never would we wish to find ourselves in a situation in which the federal government intervened without being asked to do so by a province. There may be areas of collaboration to be established. We understand that very well. Viruses and natural disasters do not always respect borders.

It remains, however that it has been clearly established that the Government of Quebec is responsible for the health and the development of its territory. We therefore hope that it will be clearly established that the government would intervene in an emergency situation only at the request of the provinces concerned.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Western Arctic for a short question.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I do seem to get the short questions, but that is okay.

I am just going back to the questions I asked the Liberal member in reference to subclause 6(2)(d). I see the definition of war or other armed conflict is neither defined geographically nor qualitatively, so we have some issues there that need to be addressed in committee.

Then of course we mitigate the effects of foreign armed conflict on Canada, so we are suggesting armed conflict that really is not on our soil. The emergency measures plan would reference perhaps other things that occur in other parts of the world.

These things should be well outlined in any committee work. I would ask the member opposite to comment.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, I had planned to talk about these provisions. My colleague is quite right to be concerned. These are the kind of broad and generic definitions which we also found in the Anti-Terrorism Act. Quite like him, we are worried and we hope we can tighten up this much too loose definition.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-12.

Across the country there are probably communities that have no idea about the content of the bill, or the content of provincial legislation around emergency preparedness. However, over the last five or six years because of what has happened in Canada and abroad people are becoming much more aware and concerned about how the country, a province or a city would respond to an emergency.

An emergency has come to have almost no meaning now or an extremely broad meaning. At one stage in our history we all fairly well understood the word “emergency” but today emergency has a much broader concept than we have seen before. There are viruses, for example. This is a tough one and we have debated this around another piece of legislation. Part of the legislation states that the federal government would enter into an emergency plan if it was in its interest to do so. I understand the position of the Bloc.

Having been a former health minister and a nurse, I know that viruses, especially new viruses, permutate all the time and turn into viruses we have never seen before. We do not know how to treat them. Viruses do not have maps. They do not permutate and then look at a map and respect provincial borders. They move across borders very quickly.

I see the Minister of Health has just come in. I know that from his experience in Ontario he is more than aware of how viruses that we have not--

[An hon. member]

You can't comment on people coming in and out.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do apologize. It was my anxiousness to acknowledge the minister's previous experience.

The minister knows very well that viruses and new diseases do not recognize borders. So the concept of when a federal government decides it is in the best interests of Canadians to enter into a provincial emergency is going to continue to be a difficult one for everybody.

On the other hand, as we saw with SARS and some other viruses, they moved quickly across the country. We were not able to keep up with them, to get ahead of them, or even to recognize any trend of what is happening.

For me it raises one of the other issues around trends particularly in health emergency situations. Because there is no mandatory reporting on the part of the provinces to the federal government or to the health ministry if they see something happening, if they see a virus, it makes it even more difficult for us to see trends occurring across the country. That causes me some concern. The federal government might not even be able to see whether or not it is in its interest because a provincial government is not mandated to report if something is occurring in that province. That causes me some concern in terms of the federal government's ability to make an informed decision.

Some education is needed in this country regarding emergency preparedness. I do not think most people know who is responsible for emergency preparedness, whom they could count on and for what.

When my children first started school, they came home one day and told me that they had a drill. I asked them if all the children had managed to get out on time. They said that they did not leave the school that they went under their desks. In British Columbia not only do we have fire drills but we also have earthquake drills. Many of us have earthquake preparation kits in our homes and in our cars. This is very different from many other parts of the country, except for Quebec and Yukon where there are earthquake risks.

What is becoming of more concern to people is who does what, when, with whom, and under what circumstances. If this bill passes, there is a responsibility on the part of the federal government, and provincial and municipal governments as well because they have their own regulations, to ensure that citizens have this information so they can feel safe. It is frightening enough to be faced with any kind of emergency, be it a climatic one or an armed conflict. It is frightening not to have any idea whatsoever as to who takes responsibility and for what. I hope committee members will take into consideration the publication of this kind of information.

In the first few hours of an incident it is important that one person be seen as taking a leadership role. It is important that one person be responsible for ensuring that all the things that are supposed to happen do happen. Responsibility should not be spread out among a variety of people. There must be one place of accountability.

The bill states, “The minister is responsible for exercising leadership relating to emergency management in Canada by coordinating, among government institutions and in cooperation with the provinces and other entities, emergency management activities”. When the committee considers the bill, I would ask it to consider two things: one, to write shorter sentences so we do not have to take a breath in the middle; and second, to make clear that the responsibility for acting would be in the hands of one minister and one minister only.

The concern about access to information has already been raised by some members. Some people feel that this concern has been answered. This bill would amend the Access to Information Act ostensibly to provide for protection of information provided by third parties which, if disclosed, might pose a security threat. I hope the committee will examine this in greater detail to see if there are any issues which may adversely affect the privacy rights of Canadians. I understand in an emergency many things have to be done, but the committee has to look a little more closely at whether this would adversely affect the privacy rights of Canadians out of proportion to what might be necessary in a particular emergency.

Several people have asked for clarity as it pertains to foreign affairs, armed conflict and so on. I think my colleague here has asked that question on two occasions. I do know that the summary states:

This enactment provides for a national emergency management system that strengthens Canada’s capacity to protect Canadians.

What people are raising is a provision of clarity that these regulations only apply in terms of things that happen, not just affect people living on Canadian soil but happen on Canadian soil. If I understand my colleague's question correctly, that is the kind of clarity that he would like to see.

I will wrap up my comments by saying that there are still a number of issues to look at when the bill goes to committee. I understand the intent of the bill. Every Canadian wants there to be in place an emergency piece of legislation where they know people will leap into action to do everything they can to make them safe.

Hurricane Katrina was a perfect example of what we should not do. People were left stranded everywhere with certain people being attended to first before people with fewer resources. We saw some very damaging ways of responding to an emergency during hurricane Katrina. I believe we will have learned those kinds of lessons. I would not of course believe that Canadians would respond to people in an emergency situation in any different way based on their current circumstances, economic, social or otherwise.

I look forward to hearing the results of the debate at committee.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

When debate resumes on Bill C-12, if it is the member's wish, she will still have eight minutes.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-12, An Act to provide for emergency management and to amend and repeal certain Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Surrey North had eight minutes left in her speech, but I think we will move on to the next speaker.

The hon. member for Northumberland—Quinte West.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for the speedy passage of Bill C-12, which would create a modern and effective emergency management act.

Like all Canadians, I am concerned by the prospect of a serious and far-reaching emergency, a threat to public health, for instance, like the world now faces from an avian influenza virus, or an attack on our mass transit system, such as those suffered by the people of London and Madrid. These are frightening scenarios, but we cannot afford to ignore them or to try to hide from them.

I am persuaded that the proposed new statutory framework would strengthen the capacity of the Government of Canada to work with partners in a way that would enhance the safety of Canadians in the face of all types of hazards, whether natural or intentional.

For all the heartbreak caused by the September 11 tragedy in the United States, we can at least say that countries like Canada drew important lessons from it. As a result of these sad events, Canada has taken many steps to better safeguard the lives, health and property of Canadians. For example, an all hazards emergency response system and the Government Operations Centre now provide round the clock monitoring and coordination in the event of an emergency.

In 2003, the outbreak of SARS put Canada's comprehensive emergency response capabilities to the test. Gaps and inadequacies became apparent. According to a study by the pre-eminent health care expert Dr. David Naylor, better cooperation and collaboration among jurisdictions involved in this emergency would have resulted in more seamless and effective interventions. Professor Naylor also called for better communication among officials and with the Canadian public.

This was sound advice for SARS and for other emergencies as well. In the event of a pandemic, for instance, the Canadian pandemic influenza plan, CPIP, would kick into action. This is a robust plan that provides sound technical and public health advice and has been praised by the World Health Organization as the first of its kind anywhere.

A strategy that builds on the CPIP is also required to address essential elements such as the protection of critical infrastructure, business continuity for government and the private sector, and economic and security considerations.

At this time, I would like to mention that I will be splitting my time with the member for Edmonton Centre.

To continue, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada, the Public Health Agency of Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency are co-chairing a deputy ministers' committee on pandemic and avian influenza planning. This committee is leading the coordination of efforts of 20 departments and agencies.

The Government of Canada is working toward raising Canada's level of preparedness for an avian and pandemic influenza. The strategy will highlight the need for a coordinated response across all levels of government, with international partners and key stakeholders, to help minimize the impact of an influenza pandemic on Canada.

In 2005, with the devastating effects of hurricane Katrina, Canada worked with the United States to provide relief for victims in more than one area. Canadians expect all levels of government to act together in responding to emergencies.

Let me give another example of this collaborative approach. An intelligence-sharing network has been put in place by Canada's Department of Transport, involving all the major rail and urban transit systems in our country. When the subway system in London was bombed by terrorists last July, this network kicked in. Information from relevant sources was being shared from the earliest possible moment with rail and mass transit across the country. As a result, security was immediately heightened within the Toronto transit system and elsewhere in Canada.

Rail and urban transit security will rely heavily on law enforcement and security information. To that end, the Government of Canada has initiated work to improve the readiness of Canada's urban transportation sector to respond rapidly to emergencies and to develop effective emergency plans. In times of crisis, it is essential that activities be coordinated. Our resources and expertise must be managed and deployed in the most effective way.

While always respecting the jurisdiction of all partners, the federal government has the experience, expertise and the necessary authority so that all players in an emergency have the information and resources they need to safeguard the well-being of Canadians, which brings me to the legislation before us.

The emergency management act proposed under Bill C-12 would further strengthen and integrate Canada's collective capacity to defend against all types of disasters and emergencies. Here is why.

The proposed statutory framework would put the public safety and emergency preparedness minister in a clear and unequivocal coordinating role for the Government of Canada. In particular, Bill C-12 sets out his authority. It also sets out his responsibility to coordinate all activities at the federal level and the spearhead interaction with the provincial, territorial and international emergency management authorities. The proposed law also provides for an integrated and coherent approach to emergency management across the Government of Canada through the application of standardized emergency management planning principles.

Another aspect of the proposed act, which I believe merits attention, relates to the protection of critical infrastructure. I am referring to health related installations such as hospitals, clinics, blood supply facilities, labs and pharmaceutical companies. I am also talking about transportation related infrastructure for rail, air, marine and surface vehicles, including those for mass transit.

There are many other sectors including finance, energy, food and agriculture, but to mention just one more, think only of the security of information and communications technologies, the computer systems that play a pivotal role in every facet of society. The bill before us would make federal ministers responsible for identifying risks to the critical infrastructure related to their portfolios and for incorporating these considerations into their emergency management plans.

People do not generally want to contemplate the prospects of serious emergency, like a bombing in our urban core or a pandemic flu outbreak, which the World Health Organization predicts could kill millions of people around the world. However, the government has no choice. It must think of such scenarios. It must accept that the threats are real and put in place the plans that would help Canadians pull through. The bill would enhance the federal government's ability to act as a collective force against modern threats.

For that reason, I urge my hon. colleagues to speed the bill through the legislative process.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a lot of the emergency response teams really deal with municipalities, whether they be fire, ambulance, police, et cetera. The bill talks about coordinating activities of government institutions relating to emergency management with those of the provinces and those of the local authorities.

I want it clarified whether the local authorities include municipalities and, if so, what kind of process is in place to do the coordination.

The other thing is that subclause 4.(1)(j) of the bill also talks about providing financial assistance to a province. However, my understanding is that a lot of these emergency response teams, such as the fire department, is 100% funded by local municipalities and not necessarily through the province. The subclause says that financial assistance to the province would only be provided when the province requested assistance. In the case of, say, the fire department, it may not come from the province. What if immediate assistance is required from agencies that are connected only through the local municipality?

The other concern I have is on the public health side. A lot of public health departments in urban centres, for example, are strapped in terms of their funding and have been unable to translate a lot of the material. In big urban centres such as Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal, a lot of information needs to be translated into different languages if there is an emergency. This is critically important in order to reach all our residents, whether they speak English, French or another language, if unilingual that way, so they can immediately get the kind of information that is critically important.

Does the definition of local authorities really connect with municipalities and the financial arrangements?

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite familiar with the procedures regarding emergency measures and those ancillary items. In my prior occupation as a police officer I was involved in emergency planning in the municipalities in which I served and in particular in Northumberland where we managed all levels of emergency response to situations and how those agencies integrated their efforts.

If we look at the current bill before the House, we will find that the federal government works in conjunction with its provincial and municipal partners upon request, and only upon request, and will respond directly to the urgency at hand.

The hon. member mentioned a particular translation into languages, et cetera. Of course the federal government would endeavour to work with all parties, municipalities as well as the provinces, to ensure that the appropriate authorities and instances that the government would be required to assist in would be addressed.

I bring her attention back to my address before the House when I mentioned the subway bombing in London and how quickly the Government of Canada was able to bring that kind of information to heighten the emergency preparedness intelligence network throughout Canada, in particular those in our mass transit systems, so they could take the appropriate action to secure the safety of the people using their services.

Those items have been addressed. Quite frankly, we are looking for a seamless integration, and Bill C-12 does that.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Northumberland—Quinte West for all his work on this bill. As a former Ontario Provincial Police officer, he obviously has a lot of expertise in this area. There is a lot of expertise in this area in our caucus. The hon. member for Edmonton Centre is a former member of the Canadian armed forces. He also brings a lot of expertise to this area.

My question concerns natural disasters. Last summer a tornado came through Wellington county. It affected two townships, the townships of Mapleton and Centre Wellington. Local citizens like Don Vallery, Mayor Spicer of Central Wellington and Mayor Green of Mapleton responded very capably. Nevertheless concerns were brought to my attention from citizens like Richard Ross, who felt that governments could be better coordinated and better able to respond to these things, especially if these natural disasters were of a larger nature.

My question for the member for Northumberland—Quinte West is this. How does the bill strengthen the Government of Canada's ability to respond to natural disasters?

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the bill coordinates all federal government agencies in order to provide the services that each community and province needs. There would be an integrated approach from a central location to provide the services that were needed.

I think back to the ice storm, which was quite a large disaster for our country. It involved more than two provinces, if I remember correctly. It required the federal government, through the armed forces and numerous other federal agencies, to get involved. This bill, in a larger catastrophe ice storm scenario, especially if it were interprovincial in nature, would provide for a more seamless and integrated approach in order to provide to municipalities and provinces the kind of assistance they would need with less bureaucratic hoops to jump through.

The bill is designed to provide a more seamless federal government approach to emergency management to ensure there is one central location with which to access all the needed assistance.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for the opportunity to join my colleagues in support of this very important legislation.

Bill C-12 explains and confirms the federal government's leadership role in coordinating major emergency response measures. Once adopted, the Emergency Management Act will enable Canada's preparedness and ability to respond to emergencies to keep pace with evolving threats. My honourable colleagues have already highlighted some of the changes included in the bill before us.

That said, allow me to elaborate on one particular aspect of the bill: the protection of critical infrastructure in Canada and the importance of physical and technological infrastructure to national security.

When we speak of infrastructure, we tend to think of roads, bridges and buses, but in this modern era the term has come to mean much more. Indeed, a long list of installations and services has become essential to our economy and our way of life. The wilful or accidental destruction or compromise of this critical infrastructure constitutes a genuine emergency. What is more is that the interdependent nature of our critical infrastructure means that an attack in one sector can have serious and cascading impacts on others.

In the energy field, for instance, we think of electrical power utilities, grids, natural gas and oil production, transmission systems and nuclear power plants. In the health sector we are talking about hospitals, clinics, blood supply facilities, laboratories and drug manufacturing plants. There is the agricultural and food industry as well from crops to distribution. We need clean drinking water and waste water management facilities.

Transportation is about roads and highways, but it is also about air, rail and marine modes of transport, both passenger travel and freight. Defence and chemical industry based manufacturing is another critical factor, which also makes it a potential target for sabotage or terrorism. The same can be said for some government services and installations, particularly monuments and other sites of key national significance. We also need to protect safety related facilities such as hazardous material depots.

Another vital sector of infrastructure involves information and communications technology. This includes Canada's sophisticated telecommunications and broadcasting systems as well as computers and networks.

The Emergency Preparedness Act, which still governs our emergency management activities, was passed in 1988. Few Canadians even had home computers then, let alone Internet access, email, wireless hand-held devices and all the electronic conveniences that we take for granted today and, frankly, curse sometimes.

Information and communications technologies are more than just a convenience. They have become the backbone of our contemporary society, supporting every other piece of infrastructure. Unfortunately, this digital backbone can be sensitive to disruption either through sabotage, accidents or natural events. The consequences can be calamitous. We need only think of the eastern Canada-western Quebec ice storm of 1998, the Ontario northeastern U.S. power blackout of 2003 and hacker attacks that have unleashed their disruptive viruses or worms across the Internet.

We recovered from those setbacks and learned from each of them. One of the things we learned was the paramount importance of strengthening the security and integrity of Canada's infrastructure, both the physical and the electronic. That is where the proposed emergency management act comes in.

Under the proposal before us, the legislation would make federal ministers responsible for identifying risks to critical infrastructure within their jurisdictions. Once the risks are identified, ministers would be obliged to prepare, maintain, test and implement emergency plans to address those risks. The plans would set out how each federal department would continue to operate in an emergency. They would also specify measures to assist the provinces and territories at the request, and by extension, municipalities and other authorities.

Given the broad range of installations and services that we now consider critical, it is clear that emergency planning poses a significant challenge. What is more, an estimated 85% of Canada's critical infrastructure is owned or operated by the private sector. How does the government coordinate so many players, not all of them under federal authority?

Information sharing is essential to public safety. As the majority of critical infrastructure is owned by the private sector, it is important that there is a willingness to share information on threats and vulnerabilities. Take for instance the case of international crossings. Emergency planners need to know where a particular facility may be vulnerable to infiltration by a saboteur or a hacker. Perhaps it is a structural weakness that might not withstand a powerful earthquake or bomb. Operators have been perhaps naturally reluctant to share vulnerability assessments and other confidential third party information with governments because they do not believe that existing legislation is sufficient for its protection. Bill C-12 proposes to amend the Access to Information Act to explicitly protect this type of sensitive information.

Bill C-12 brings much-needed updates to our current emergency management legislation.

First of all, it recognizes the importance of critical infrastructure and holds all federal ministers responsible for identifying risks associated with infrastructure in their area of responsibility.

Secondly, it sets out management mechanisms for those risks, including the coordinated development and execution of emergency management plans.

Finally, in an effort to facilitate joint planning, this bill would be the first to protect the confidentiality of information the government receives from the private sector in the course of preparing emergency management plans.

Those are important innovations that would help Canada better withstand major emergencies. I call upon my hon. colleagues to lend their support to this worthy and necessary legislative initiative.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I am not sure whether I received the answer previously I would ask for clarification again. In the definition of the bill does “local authorities” include municipalities, yes or no? I raise that question because in the bill it states that the federal government would come into the picture only if requested by the province and not by any other level of government.

In that case, if, for example, in the city of Toronto there is a problem on the highway, like Don Valley Parkway or QEW with millions and millions of cars, it is 100% local government responsibility.

We talked about the London bombing with respect to public transit. Unlike London, England, the operating funds for local transit systems are 100% local government. In London the state government is actually involved in operating the public transit system. The fire departments are 100% local authorities and local government. Therefore, the financial assistance and the coordination, if there is an emergency, a lot of these areas are connected to local municipalities.

My question is clear. In the bill does the phrase “local authorities” also mean local municipalities? Why would the government not amend it to add in the request of the provinces and/or municipalities in that case?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, a very quick short answer to the hon. member's good but lengthy question is yes. Once again, as mentioned by the previous speaker, the answer is yes. Of course it applies to municipalities. The municipalities work through the province to the federal government when they need assistance in whatever way is required by the emergency in question.

Frankly, I do not really care what happens in London, England, but I do care what happens in Canada. The purpose of Bill C-12 is to ensure we have a good, solid, coordinated national, as in federal, provincial and local authority, organization to deal with whatever emergency situation comes up.

That is the long way to say yes it does include municipalities.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to put the following question to the previous speaker. I am not blaming him. However, I just listened to two speakers from the government benches talking as though there were no emergency measures in Canada. In fact, there are some in several provinces.

The general philosophy, concerning emergency measures, is to go from bottom to top. As I listen to them, I have the feeling that the current government still considers, as did previous governments unfortunately, that this goes from top to bottom.

Is he aware that the majority of emergencies in Canada must be dealt with locally, that there are provincial laws that provide for such situations, and that the federal government should reserve its assistance for greater emergencies, to fight against greater disasters?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, of course, I am aware of the efforts of municipalities and provinces.

I know my hon. colleague is experienced in that area and he has done a tremendous job in the province of Quebec.

As I said in response to the last question, the requests go from the municipalities, which are the ones who respond to every emergency that happens in their area of jurisdiction to whatever extent they can. If they need help, they will go up the line. If the provinces need help, they will go up the line to the federal government.

The point of Bill C-12 is to ensure, from the federal government's point of view, that coordination is in place so that when requests do come up, things can be handled quickly and seamlessly between the federal government and the province and the municipality as necessary driven by the circumstances on the ground in the municipality or the province where the emergency is taking place.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-12, the emergency management act. I think we can all remember a time not so long ago when life was gentler and perhaps seemed a lot safer. However, 9/11 happened and, in many ways, the world changed.

After 9/11 it is important for us to remember that while the threats are more evident, certainly in the papers and in our lives, we must all live a life of vigilance, not live a life and be paranoid. In response to that, this bill has come up, a bill that builds upon the work that was done by the previous government in a number of areas.

After 9/11 we constructed PSEPC and invested more than $7 billion in developing an integrated network that would involve threat monitoring, assessment and response, not only here at home but abroad. I will divide the threats into two separate sections: those that are natural and those that are man-made.

We have the natural threats but perhaps one of the most evident and frightening threats for most people was SARS. SARS is a virus that percolates through birds in certain parts of the world, especially in the Guangdong area of China. Within that area we have seen historically, over the last 120 years or more, that every 20 or 25 years a pandemic circles the globe killing sometimes tens of millions of people. Indeed, that is the fear we all have.

SARS is a difficult problem to deal with because the virus itself morphs and changes continuously, which is why developing a vaccine is so challenging and why every year a vaccine comes out but it is never the same as the one in the previous year. The reason is that although the virus is a simple one, it is in some ways a bizarrely clever virus because it always changes its coats. It is always morphing and it is a challenge to keep ahead of it.

Our researchers in Canada are some of the best in the world. After the SARS crisis, we developed an integrated threat assessment program looking at hospitals across the country and monitoring the mortality and morbidity, the sickness and death statistics in the country to find out whether there are any disturbing peaks.

What Canadians are proud of and what is a feather in the cap of our country is that we are the best in the world. Because of that, other countries have asked us for our expertise. We have sent over some of our top-notch mobile labs and scientific researchers to the Far East where they are actually on the cusp of where this virus no doubt will stem from and where it will start its deadly march when it is able to transfer from birds to mammals, which of course includes human beings, then, most frighteningly, when that virus is able to be transferred from person to person.

It is a testimony to our scientific researchers and our integrated threat assessment program that we set up that we are the best in that area.

In another area, we saw the tsunami that devastated southeast Asia that also shook us, being a nation that lives in part on the cusp of the Pacific Ocean. My riding is on Vancouver Island and it is something that is very concerning to us. We have begun to set up a tsunami monitoring system in our country and have set up, to some degree, this system in other parts of the world, particularly in the mid-Pacific and further toward the Far East. It has started to work. More work needs to be done and I am sure the government will look at continuing that work so we will have a superb tsunami monitoring system for the Pacific. I know the constituents in my province of British Columbia and other MPs here from my province will be grateful for that.

The other area is SARS. Beyond the threat assessment network, we also developed a system of stockpiling antiviral drugs, particularly Tamiflu, but we need to be careful because this is not the solution to the problem. Tamiflu is not the solution to deal with SARS, for many reasons that I will not get into here.

The other issue I want to talk about gets into the man-made issues, which two of our colleagues from the government's side dealt with. The extent of the challenge is fairly obvious. The response can be divided into two sections. One would be dealing with the individuals who would choose to wage war against others and kill people against their religious beliefs. Indeed, those who utilize religion as a tool to murder others, and I am talking specifically about fundamentalists, and again we have seen a lot of this with Muslim fundamentalists, in no way, shape or form represent the Muslim faith.

In fact, the Quran says very clearly that if a person saves one life, that person has saved the lives of humanity. If a person kills one person, that person kills humanity. Indeed, Islam and the Quran forbid anyone to take up arms against another and to hurt another. That is much misunderstood and is little known.

We have to understand that the people who are utilizing religion and other propaganda to foment often violent sentiments against the west are warping, twisting and mutilating their religion for their own benefit. This can be dealt with in a number of ways.

In the country that spawned this violence we have to do a better job of actually dealing with it pragmatically. Sometimes our combat troops are necessary and they do an outstanding job, as they are doing right now in Afghanistan, giving their lives for security to occur. In order to support them, the development component must occur.

Within the confines of Afghanistan we have simply asked that four parts of this mission be supported. First is the defence component which is being supported, not only from the full combat capability, but also to the development capability. Second is the development component internally in Afghanistan. Third is the training of Afghan security forces. Fourth is dealing with the insurgents from outside Pakistan. Dealing with the insurgency outside Pakistan requires a multi-faceted approach. In the madrassahs of a certain country little children are fed a steady diatribe of hate against the west. As a result, when some of those children grow up, they choose to take up arms against the west.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder what this all has to do with Bill C-12. Clearly it is about Afghanistan and the security situation in Afghanistan. I am not sure what it has to do with emergency preparedness in Canada. I would ask the hon. member to stick to the topic.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I am sure the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca appreciates the intervention by the member for Edmonton Centre. I think he will want to stick to the merits of the bill. I will grant him some time to get to the actual merits of this particular bill that we are debating now.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to answer the member's question. The security situation within Afghanistan is intimately tied to our security. That is why we are there. We are there to deal with al-Qaeda. The member, who is a former officer of the Canadian Forces, knows full well that our troops are in Afghanistan to provide the security so development can occur behind that, so that training of Afghan security forces can occur and so that we can deal with the insurgencies.

That is why in dealing with security threats here in Canada it is important for us to deal with some of the root causes of that insecurity. Part of it is to deal with the threat of terrorism. We have to deal with countries through our development prism and change those educational components which feed a steady diet of lies and hate to children and leads them to one day take up arms against us in the west. The only way to address it is on the ground.

Here at home probably the best bang for the buck in terms of dealing with security would be to invest in intelligence. We did that when we put $7 billion into our security plan for our country. We made a specific increased investment in CSIS and the RCMP to give them the tools to deal with security threats within Canada.

Most people recognize that the best way to protect all of us here at home is to deal with a strategic investment in intelligence and to work with groups on the ground. We must ensure that those groups have the ability to communicate with each other. We must ensure that they have the intelligence information and the resources, both human and otherwise, to support intelligence activities in Canada.

By working with moderate leaders in communities within our country we are able to address threats that not only affect us but also affect those communities. We tend to forget that when individuals from certain communities commit acts of grievous violence against innocent civilians, it hurts their communities too.

There is a deep and profound angst and hurt within the Muslim community that some individuals are hiding behind the religion of Islam and purporting to kill innocent civilians in the name of God and Islam. They recognize full well that it is not the case. That is why it is very important for us, and I certainly hope that the government will continue with the process which we started, to work with moderate leaders in communities within our country. They are more than happy to work with us and with CSIS and the RCMP to ensure that we have the ears and feet on the ground to identify individuals who are threatening to kill innocent civilians.

Indeed, the members of Parliament from Toronto know full well that it was the brave actions of our RCMP and the Toronto police force and others, and members in the Muslim community, who worked hard with to apprehend those individuals before they were able to murder innocent civilians. We need to congratulate and thank all of those groups for their hard work. That does belie the fact that more investment has to take place in our security.

In dealing with natural disasters, one of the things we started was to fund, utilize and increase the numbers of our reserves within the Canadian Forces. The thousands of individuals in Canada who give of themselves to work in our Canadian Forces, in the reserve component, deserve enormous credit. They would like to work as aides to the primary responders, the police forces, firefighters and ambulance workers. Our reserve forces can be an active and able component to assist our first responders. I would encourage the government to continue something that we started when we were in government.

When the Leader of the Opposition was the defence minister, I was his parliamentary secretary and we worked hard with General Hillier the chief of the defence staff on a process to increase the number of our reserve force by 3,000. What they also need and what was left as unfinished business was training and the resources for training, as well as the equipment needed to respond in an integrated fashion to various disasters across the country.

We also need an adequate and competent communication network. When disasters occur, communication breaks down. It is a very difficult challenge but it is one that must be overcome very quickly. This is of an urgent nature in my province of British Columbia where two plates are grinding against each other. We know with certainty there will be a massive earthquake that will affect Vancouver Island as well as the coast some time in the next 100 years. It could happen tomorrow, 10 years from now, or 50 years from now, but it will happen.

I would implore the government to please continue the work we were doing to develop an integrated communication network that is impermeable to the effects of a disaster. This is critically important.

The government must also integrate our first responders with our reserve forces. When we were government we developed a threat assessment and a first response network that is centred here in Ottawa, integrated with other provincial responder units across Canada, which then goes down to the local communities and our first responders. We set that up across Canada. The communication network needs to be supported within that context.

We started a process of training our first responders, both firefighters and police, but more needs to be done in that area. I would encourage the government to listen to what our firefighters and our police officers are saying and respond to those needs.

We also developed the NESS system, an emergency network across the country. This is quite exciting. Dozens of portable hospitals are set up across our country. Each of these hospitals can have up to 168 beds. The hospitals are fully formatted to deal with an emergency. They are forward planted. Some of those portable hospitals were used during the tsunami relief operations in Southeast Asia. They proved to be very valuable.

I would implore the government to continue supporting the NESS system which we started. It would enable us in times of disaster to set up forward deployed portable hospitals across the country which would be fully functional. It is important for that activity to continue.

The other issue I would suggest dealing with is protection. More attention from all of us is needed regarding the protection of our critical areas, not only the transportation arteries on land, but also the ports and container traffic. A major significant area where our defences could be breached is with regard to container traffic. The other areas are water protection and protection for our nuclear power plants. An adequate assessment of that would be valuable.

We could learn a lot in looking at the 9/11 report from the United States. We should look at the findings of that report and ask ourselves what the U.S. did wrong in those areas. The 9/11 report articulates them. We could determine what the solutions are and whether we are applying those solutions to the challenges in our own country. The 9/11 commission report would give our government a framework that we could apply to our country and ask ourselves the difficult questions that have to be asked and answered in the interests of the safety of the citizens whom we serve. That document is critical.

We also started to study the U.S. failure in New Orleans with respect to hurricane Katrina. Our Canadian Forces did an outstanding job in assisting during Katrina. Divers from Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt went down there to save lives.They worked under the most difficult circumstances. They deserve an enormous amount of credit for what they did.

It is interesting to note that our Canadian Forces and civilian responders responded much quicker than did U.S. responders to the disaster in the wake of Katrina. We were on the ground helping those people right away. Our Canadian Forces, firefighters and police officers were there and did an outstanding job, responding quickly.

We looked at the response by the United States to the disaster in the wake of Katrina and noted what it had done well, what it had not done well and what we could learn from it. It is important for the government to look at the response. It is also important for the two ministers involved in defence to look at that document and address it.

There are two other areas about which I want to talk. One is research in the private sector. It is an area that is not known very well, it is not protected well and there is a lot of ignorance about it. A lot of research is done in the private sector. Some of that research has significant capabilities with respect to security, which could be used as tools against us, not only in the medical field but in other fields too.

The application of the research in the private sector could be utilized by individuals who would choose to harm us in nefarious ways. The problem is how we can protect against that research getting into the hands of those individuals? This area is not explored. It is an area where there is a lack of knowledge. I would implore the government to work with the private sector and educate it on the need to protect some of the research that is done. If we educate the private sector, it will fully understand and be very cooperative with the government and enable it to address the issue. It is a big black hole that has not been dealt with.

Last, as was mentioned before, protection of our communication, computer and information technology sector is critically important. We need to continue that endeavour to deal with it because it is an ever-changing field that is obviously difficult to get ahead of, but it is something we must do.

Bill C-12 will continue to build on the work we did in the former government in a wide variety of areas. We encourage the government to work with us to help this happen in the interests of all our citizens from coast to coast.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member's comments, suggestions and encouragement. I have a couple of quick questions.

A program had been put together after 9/11 to train local responders. It was the heavy urban search and rescue program. It was to set out to deal with biological chemical incidents. It was supposed to be a fifty-fifty saw off. Sadly, the previous government abandoned its commitment to the program so the urban centres were left on the hook to train people in this area.

My first comment is that it is fine to have this kind of infrastructure, but if we do not have the saw off and the equity in helping first responders, then really this is just words on paper.

The second point is I know firefighters, one a friend of mine, went to New York in the wake of 9/11. They did not know what they were getting into. We know the health effects that plagued the first responders. We need to take a look at that.

Could the member comment on that? When we send people into harm's way and into danger, how do we ensure they will not pay the price for a very long period of time? For some, it has been lethal and it has affected their health dramatically.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, he is quite correct that we started a process for biological, chemical and radiological events within Canada. We had started to train first responders. We need to do more of that. In Vancouver some of our first responders have been the beneficiaries of that training, as well as in other parts of the country. Again, we need to continue on with that process.

The other thing we wanted to do was use our reserves as an adjunct to first responders, and they would then be trained specifically. One of their talents and skills would be a specific capability with respect to biological, chemical and radiological events within Canada.

When I was working in defence, we had training sessions. We had mock events of such a horrific event that took place right in downtown Ottawa. What we now need to do is build on that with respect to the reserves.

First, with respect to those individuals who commit heroic acts and go into areas and face health effects, not only in the short term but long term, we always try to ensure they have the equipment to protect themselves.

Second, they receive the care that they require if, heaven forbid, the unforeseeable happens and they are injured in the commission of their duties. That is our responsibility to all individuals who engage in activities in the protection of society at large.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech, especially the sociological discourse as to what was behind it all. I learned something.

I want to point out a couple of things and then ask a question.

First, the reserves and the Canadians Forces regulars have been doing aid of the civil power for as long as I can remember, having done it myself as a young officer cadet in the early sixties. This is nothing new and it is not something that any particular government invented.

The other thing is finally this government is doing something about spending money on the military reserves and regular force and equipment to allow things to happen like getting DART somewhere it needs to go in a reasonable time, such as in a Canadian C-17 instead of a U.S. air force C-17.

I agree with most of what the hon. member has said. He has some great points. There is not a lot of disagreement with them. My question for him is very simple. I take it from his remarks that he is personally supports Bill C-12, will vote for it and will encourage his colleagues to do so?

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the work he has done as an officer in our Canadian Forces and the air force. I know he has accorded himself honourably in the commission of his duties for our country. As a Canadian, I think we all thank him for the work that he has done, as we do indeed all our Canadian Forces officers and non-commissioned officers and men and women who are in the ranks from top to bottom who work in the commission of their duties with remarkable efficiency, honour and courage. We all owe them a debt.

When I was making my comments about aid to civil power, I was not suggesting that this was something new. What I was suggesting was that the capabilities for our reserve force was going to change and that we were going to modernize them somewhat and give them broader capabilities

Dealing with the chemical, biological, radiological challenges was never considered before. Therefore, this was something we were going to task our reserve force with so they could aid civil power and first responders. We wanted to increase the capabilities on the ground in an integrated way so we could support those reserve forces and they in turn could support our first responders.

It is really a dual track approach: first, help our first responders to have the tools and the training they need; and second, help our reserves to have similar capabilities so they could support them in the event of a disaster.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member spent quite a bit of time on a very small aspect of the emergency spectrum of possibilities in which we could get involved. This is a matter which has been dealt with by the House in prior parliaments. In fact, it has billions of dollars invested in it. I think about $9.5 billion to strengthen our national security was invested in prior parliaments.

Some concern has been expressed about whether Canada is ready and prepared on the terrorist side, being in close proximity to the United States. Even within the bill, there is a ministerial responsibility to coordinate emergency efforts with regard to emergencies that occur in Canada or the United States.

Could the member give us an idea of the enormity of the consolidated or coordinating effort that is required when dealing beyond our own borders, not to mention other levels of government and maybe the duplication or overlap of interests and responsibilities? This is a very important bill and very onerous. Is Canada ready?

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member asked a very pertinent question about whether we were ready against terrorism. I do not think one is ever completely ready because individuals will always be able to kill other people if they want. Our job is to do the best that we can to protect innocent civilians. There is no perfect solution.

The member mentioned something very important, which is we try to avoid duplication. In the interest of utilizing the taxpayer money effectively, we started PSEPC. We could work with PSEPC, invest the money, develop the national coordinating system, which we have here, and be able to link that with provincial coordinating bodies and, by extension, down to the municipalities. That is critically important.

On the terrorism file, we have to recognize that the 9/11 al-Qaeda was a much more monolithic organization. Since 9/11 it has changed a lot. The U.K., Madrid, now Toronto and events in the other parts of the world have shown very clearly that al-Qaeda is now operating as a diffused series of cells around the world. It does not have the monolithic culture. Furthermore, other groups are offshoots of al-Qaeda. They are also willing to engage in the same bloody-minded, violent actions against the west that have nothing to do with Islam whatsoever, nothing to do with religion and certainly nothing to do with any God of which I am aware.

It is important that we continue. I hope the government, as the Liberals have tried to do, invests in intelligence and works with civil society in Canada, with affected communities, communities that have within them members who would engage in this behaviour. Those are the people we should be dealing with to ensure we can address the threat within our midst.

Last, for those who believe that we are not at risk, we are at risk.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first say that we will be voting for the bill on second reading.

It contains some things that we do not like, to be honest. I believe that they could be improved in committee, but it is still important that these things be said.

Once again, the federal government imagines that it has to run the whole show. In the present circumstances, the issue is not solely about the fact that Quebec is more sensitive to protecting provincial powers, and because we want to have all the powers, we would like to exercise all of the powers that we already have; is that it? No, it is really because it is in the nature of things that action must originate at the local level, when there is a disaster, because that is what it is called. That is an accurate term. It is at that level that the plan must be originated.

Obviously we are prepared to acknowledge that the federal government has a role to play. In fact, in the major disasters we have dealt with in Quebec, we have never, to my knowledge, had any complaint about the contribution made by the federal authorities—even when it was the army!

Obviously the army may have equipment that we do not have in local communities. For example, if we need helicopters, the army is just about the only source from which they can be obtained quickly. The army also provides a disciplined and multi-skilled body of workers. When a lot of people are needed for the job, it can step in to protect institutions and it can go around neighbourhoods, as in the case of the ice storm, to urge people to leave and tell them where they could go, and so on.

I am also persuaded, and I will say this straight off, that a disaster is not the time to be squabbling over territorial jurisdiction. I believe that everyone is naturally going to work together.

What I do not like about this bill, and what seemed to me to be reflected in the notes prepared for some of the speakers on the government side, is that there still seemed to be this mindset that the federal government is going to organize everything that has to be done in emergencies in Canada, that it is going to take that responsibility upon itself once again. I believe that this is not a good idea.

I will just draw a few comparisons. This bill that has been put before us contains 14 clauses. The Civil Protection Act in Quebec has 196. An act is not judged by how many sections it has, but nonetheless this provides an idea of what we covered in that act. I had the honour of organizing it and presiding over its passage. It was a great honour, because I had no experience in civil protection, although I had experience in public safety. I was struck by the skill and dedication of the people behind that act. They had already presented me with a plan for safety in the case of fires, and the funny thing was that it was a plan similar to the one for civil protection. I thought it to be so intelligent that I said we would implement it. It was prompted by the Nicolet report, which was written in response to the ice storm.

Quebec may have the best legislation in Canada. I do not know, because I have not compared it with the others, but one thing is certain: Quebec has found itself in circumstances where it had to take action. And we found that the laws we had at the time were put to a tough test. We learned lessons from this and then we decided to enact the best possible law. As a result, that act is of some significance.

Of course, I would not do this other than in the present case, but perhaps it is appropriate to warn the Globe and Mail that the ice storm episodes and the deluge in Saguenay have nothing to do with the language quarrels or Bill 101 in Quebec. Normally, I would not comment on this but let us do it. We can go on to more serious matters after our little recess.

Let us see what clause 3 says:

The Minister is responsible for exercising leadership relating to emergency management in Canada—

However, I do not agree. The minister certainly has the right to exercise it in areas of federal jurisdiction, but leadership roles must be the responsibility of local authorities.

In the ice storm in Quebec, it is the premier who played a leadership role, to the satisfaction of all. This greatly contributed to his popularity and that of the government at the time.

Then, in clause 4.(1)(d) in particular, we are told that the minister's responsibilities include:

monitoring potential, imminent and actual emergencies and advising other ministers accordingly.

I appreciate that, in the context, perhaps we want to talk only about emergencies that the federal government must deal with, but we see that this still has a very general scope. However, this is not everywhere. There is still the concern to remain in one's area of jurisdiction. I quote:

—coordinating the activities of government institutions relating to emergency management with those of the provinces...and through the provinces, those of local authorities.

The other jurisdictions are being recognized.

establishing arrangements with each province whereby any consultation...may be carried out effectively.

There is good intention.

coordinating the provision of assistance to a province in respect of a provincial emergency, other than the provision of financial assistance and the calling out of the Canadian Force for service in aid of the civil power—

I accept that the federal government would maintain jurisdiction over the armed forces, even in these cases.

[...]providing assistance other than financial assistance to a province if the province requests it;

Once again, the local authorities are respected.

However, there are other clauses that give rise to concerns about the bill, which we could examine in committee. For example, in subclause 6.(2), the French version is more general than the English, which reads:

Each minister shall include in an emergency management plan,[...]

This means that every minister must include certain elements in his or her plan whereas the French text states “Every emergency management plan must include the following:[...]”, as if all the plans throughout Canada were to include the elements imposed by the federal government. I believe that would be a basic mistake.

However, I recognize that subclause 6.(3) states:

A government institution may not respond to a provincial emergency unless the government of the province requests assistance or there is an agreement with the province that requires or permits the assistance.

In this case, the jurisdiction is respected.

This is why I believe we could improve this legislation in committee and that we probably all share the desire, no matter the political party we represent or our political persuasion, to end up with a bill satisfactory to all.

Many members have spoken about civil security. I would like to explain the major components of the Quebec Civil Protection Act in order to provide an understanding of how, in the provinces, we are ready for emergencies and the details of our plans, whereas here, what in essence is being proposed is legislation to enable regulations. In the Quebec law as in ours, every department is required to prepare an emergency plan. That is one of the components of the Quebec law.

As I mentioned, the Quebec law has 196 sections. I will read Article 1 which explains what is covered by the law:

The purpose of this Act is the protection of persons and property against disasters, through mitigation measures, emergency response planning, response operations in actual or imminent disaster situations and recovery operations.

We therefore have PPIR: prevention, preparation, intervention and recovery. As you can see, it is an attempt to fully cover emergency preparedness. It deals with people whose activities or property generate risk, by creating certain obligations, namely mentioning them to the municipality that will have to take all this into consideration in its risk coverage plan. It addresses the responsibilities of the local and regional authorities. It addresses the public safety plan, an aspect of which I will come back to because it is central to this legislation. It addresses local declarations of states of emergency, when they should be declared and under what circumstances. It addresses which government departments and agencies have to prepare their own emergency plans. It talks about the coordination role of the public security minister.

It deals with the national public safety plan. There are regional plans, but there also needs to be a national plan that applies to Quebec as a whole. It addresses the orders to implement certain measures and declarations of local emergencies. It addresses the role of the government, its obligations and when it intervenes. It also addresses financial assistance for people during and after the disaster.

In Quebec, we are pretty well prepared to intervene in disaster situations. That does not mean we would not need or want help from the federal government. Nonetheless, we do not want it to come in and take over for us.

I talked about the public safety plan, which is essentially this: local elected politicians must meet at the RCM level, regional county municipality—there are roughly a hundred in Quebec—or in metropolitan communities in the case of big cities. They must prepare their public safety plan.

What is a public safety plan? It is taking stock of the risks. There is a railway track near us, are hazardous materials transported across it? What would happen if a train ever derailed? Where are the reservoirs that might explode? What would happen in a power outage?

Then we draw up an inventory of our resources. What resources do we have? Where can we quickly house people who have no shelter? What can we do if we have to get along without electricity for a week or two? Are there any generators? In one Quebec municipality, a woman knew that train engines are generators. They generate electricity. So we put all that together and apply our resources to the needs. We have a plan that has to be approved by the government, which provides suggestions, and we have to implement this plan so that when a disaster strikes, we know what to do.

Things are much more developed in the act that in what is proposed here, and there is no need for the federal government to tell us what to do.

Many people have mentioned Hurricane Katrina, which really caught our imaginations. I think that people would probably be interested to know what someone who has been involved in public safety thinks about what happened when Hurricane Katrina struck. In my view, it was a disgrace that the most powerful country in the world reacted in this way. Look at what would have happened if they had had to follow the Quebec legislation. Local elected officials would have had to draw up a public safety plan. They would have had to list the dangers they faced and their resources, and they would have had to apply their resources to the dangers. What were the dangers? The danger was that there were levies. If the levies were breached, there would be considerable flooding. They knew how weak the levies were. They knew that the levies could not withstand hurricanes that were Force 3 or more. They knew several days in advance that there was a Force 5 hurricane set to arrive. They were actually lucky because it eventually became a Force 4 hurricane. However, the levies still broke, as expected, and parts of the city were flooded. They knew in advance what parts would be flooded. If they had had a public safety plan—maybe they had one but failed to implement it—what would they have foreseen under such circumstances? Put local officials around a table to think about it and they would say an evacuation order is needed. What happens if an evacuation order is issued but people do not want to leave? They have to be reassured and the army has to be ready to protect their property. The army will need boats. The military has to get through. We have calculated for our part that if an evacuation order is given, 85% of the people will leave on their own. Eighty-five per cent of the people could stay with friends or in a second home, and they would prefer that.

So we expect to cover 25% of the population. We are not taking any chances. When we order an evacuation and a given number of vehicles are heading out on the roads at the same time, they all have to be going in one direction. We can use both sides of the highways and keep one lane for emergencies. Furthermore, we have to anticipate that these people are going to need gas. If we think of this, if we prepare for it, we will be ready and it will be carried out. Take the example of Hurricane Katrina, which proved shameful for the richest and most powerful country in the world. I am much more critical of the reaction by the local authorities than others have been of President Bush's reaction.

What surprises me most is that the mayor was re-elected under such circumstances. He should have issued the order to evacuate; he should have worked out how to transport the people with no cars and how to direct those who had cars. Where to accommodate them? What food to serve the people being accommodated?

So civil security is assured up to a certain point. However, I recognize that the federal government can contribute resources. For instance, we were talking about the four sectors where people are needed who wear a particular uniform so that they can respond. The federal government can prepare those uniforms and place them in designated locations. There could be laboratories there working to produce vaccines quickly.

In Laval, for example, just southwest of my riding, the Institut Armand-Frappier would be able to provide vaccines against avian flu, and extremely quickly. The Institut Armand-Frappier has an international reputation and is affiliated with the Pasteur institutes all over the world. For example, it deals with Pasteur institutes in Vietnam and Asia which are very familiar with the virus. No matter: it is obvious that the things well done are done at the local level. In the risk coverage plan, I find it intelligent that we are always told to avoid devising blanket solutions. A civil security plan does not provide for blanket solutions precisely because it is the locally elected people who know their plants and who sit down at the table who assess a risk.

So we have no blanket solutions, but we have solutions perfectly suited to the local populations. What is more, the local authorities know when to call the government. So I hope for a little humility on the part of the federal government. It certainly has a role to play in these institutions, in assessing its own risks, its own activities, but in my view, the initiative and above all the authority to take steps in the event of major disasters must be clearly left to the provinces and the local authorities, well supervised by their own provincial government.

I have finished. If any time is left, I will respond to more questions.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague again for his speech. However, I do not know why my friend insists that there are no bogeymen. I am sorry, but I do not know how the member would say that in French.

I really do not understand why my hon. friend insists that there is a government bogeyman here that is going to somehow take away the authority of the local responders. That has never been the case. It has not been the case in the past. It is not the case now. It will not be the case in the future. Nowhere in the legislation does it imply that.

Clearly, the province of Quebec, thanks to my hon. friend, has a very refined emergency response procedure from the local level on up through the province to the federal government where it is necessary.

There are many very talented and smart Canadians living and working in the province of Quebec as there are in the other provinces and other provinces have refined plans as well. It really baffles me why we are insisting that there is some kind of usurping of Quebec's authority from the local level. That is just not the case.

I also point out to my hon. friend, and I think he did bring it up, that the failure in Katrina was in fact at the local response level and more so than anywhere else.

I ask my hon. friend with respect to the ice storm of 1998, which he mentioned, does he appreciate, and I am sure he does, the fact that it did go from the local emergency through the province to the federal authorities, and in fact internationally where most of the big generators that were moved around in that emergency were in fact transported by U.S. air force C-17 aircraft?

Does he not appreciate the fact that it has always been a matter of what is going on at the local level that drives the response and that drives it up through the chain from the province to the federal government? I guess I would ask him why he insists that there are bogeymen here trying to take away the authority when that is just not the case, other than it might satisfy his local politics?

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have to admit that I do not know how to say bogeymen in French either.

I would say that it is because of the past. The federal government tends to think that it has to run the show, in many areas.

As I mentioned earlier, I do not think there is a desire, certainly not on the part of the previous speaker, to have the federal government take the lead. When I read the bill, I get the feeling that not too far below the surface is that tendency of the federal government to think that only it can make intelligent rules in Canada.

The bill states:

3. The Minister is responsible for exercising leadership relating to emergency management—

In my opinion, this is not true. I think that this is a complementary role. It may be a leadership role within the federal government, but certainly not in managing emergencies. The reason things worked so well in Quebec is that the Premier of Quebec stepped in.

Then, the bill gives the minister authority over:

4(1)(d) monitoring potential, imminent and actual emergencies and advising other ministers accordingly;

There is still more:

6(2) Each minister shall include in an emergency management plan

This again implies that the minister wants control over all emergency plans. Quite honestly, I do not see how the minister will go about judging our plans.

We will look at the other points together, and I am certain that we will be able to come to an agreement. But from experience, I can say that when it is written in the fine print somewhere in the law, the federal government always ensures that it is able to intervene when jurisdictions overlap. That is my concern. I think this can be corrected, and I am certain that I will likely have the cooperation of the previous speaker.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether there is a bogeywoman in this emergency management bill.

In terms of SARS, many workers ended up losing their jobs in hotels. Many citizens ended up not having a whole month of salary because of the quarantine situation. Many people were not able to go to work and as a result suffered financial consequences. In the case of the blackout in Ontario, many people lost their businesses and some businesses never really recovered. As a result of this emergency crisis they desperately needed compensation.

I would like to find out from my friend whether in his mind emergency compensation should come from the federal government or the provincial government. Should it be a shared responsibility or a fifty-fifty responsibility? In these types of spectacular crises, who should bear the responsibility of compensating citizens and businesses that suffer huge financial losses?

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am satisfied with the current system.

Compensation is first a provincial responsibility, and the federal government gets involved depending on the seriousness of the disaster and the amount of expenses. I do not remember the exact numbers, but I believe that, if the expenses are more than $1 per person, the federal government pays 20%. If they are more than $2 per person in that province, the federal government pays 30%. If they are more than $3, it pays 50%. I think that, from $4 or $5, the federal government pays 100%.

All in all, the federal government is a great insurer of the provinces. This formula makes it possible to adjust compensation depending on the seriousness of the disaster and the population of the province. I think that this is a good system.

The member's initial remarks bring me to another point. Yes, we thought about this. Following these disasters, we realized that, in the past, the cabinet was always implementing special measures to compensate victims. Why not have a system set down in law? That is why, at the end of the act, there is a whole chapter that provides for financial aid. When disasters occur and people must leave their home and find a place to live, they want to immediately receive the money they need to find a home and feed themselves. Then, when they file claims for lost property or lost work, there are criteria in the act or the regulations, and we can compensate them quickly.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question concerning the Constitution for the member of the Bloc Québécois.

He said that the Government of Canada did not respect the Constitution of Canada because it was prepared to introduce a law on a matter that fell under the responsibility of the province of Quebec.

The responsibility for emergencies in Canada is clearly a responsibility of the Government of Canada. Courts over the years, the judicial committee of the Privy Council and the Supreme Court, have consistently ruled that the interpretation of peace, order and good government also constitutes an emergency doctrine that allows the Government of Canada to have responsibility for emergencies, and that is precisely what this bill would do.

Bill C-12 is entitled “An Act to provide for emergency management and to amend and repeal certain Acts”. Why does the hon. member think that it is not the responsibility of this Parliament to ensure emergency management for all Canadians?

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. Member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin for a brief response.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I am responding, frankly, because it is the least effective solution. In most emergencies, the most effective solutions are to be found at the local level. For my own part, I do not know where in the Constitution there is a provision to supply aid in the event of an emergency. This is a responsibility that governments have gradually assumed since 1867 and, in truth, assistance in terms of intervening in the case of an emergency is incidental to the powers dealing with the movement or general welfare of the population, or any other subject.

Perhaps the famous formula that the member referred to at the beginning, for the “peace, order and good government of Canada” would apply, but that is rather through its relationship to social welfare, which is not mentioned but which falls into the jurisdiction of the provinces.

In any case, I recognize that the federal government has a role to play, but that role is not to establish the rules for everyone. That is best done at the local level. This bill does not establish very much except for emergency plans that would originate with federal ministers for their government, but one would say that they want to manage the training of front-line interveners, that they want—

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. Member for Yukon.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here and to speak on the subject of Bill C-12, An Act to provide for emergency management and to amend and repeal certain Acts.

At the outset of my 20 minute presentation, I certainly want to say that of course we support this bill. It is a bill that we had presented to Parliament previously. There are some changes, but we certainly welcome the reintroduction of the emergency management bill tabled by our government in November 2005.

That bill fulfilled a promise we made in our national security policy in April 2004. It built on our excellent record on security since 9/11, a record of investing over $9.5 billion to strengthen national security, improve emergency preparedness, contribute to international security, create the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, and establish the national 24-7 Government Operations Centre to coordinate federal emergency responses.

People ask us why we are making a change in emergency response. We are in a different world. The world is changing. In the past, species that did not learn to adapt as the world changed became extinct. The world has changed dramatically since 9/11. Who would have expected a 9/11 type of incident and the type of emergency preparedness we now have to put in place to deal with those types of problems?

It reminds me of the American revolution when the strong British had their formula and the American revolutionaries did something absolutely new when they wore no uniforms and shot from the ditches. It was unexpected and the British were not prepared for it. That same type of unexpected strategy occurred on September 11 and we need new methods of emergency response to prevent such things.

Another example, of course, is the recent shooting in Montreal. Once again, thank goodness the Montreal police have realized that it is a new world and have changed their previous procedures. They did not wait outside for the SWAT team, as previous procedures had mandated. They learned by experience. They updated their procedures, went in right away and probably saved a large number of people who would not otherwise have been saved.

Of course it is a new world also because of changes made by mankind that are related to climate. Global warming of course has had dramatic and some very tragic effects related to weather patterns. Hurricanes and droughts have had devastating effects on people and families in a new world that we could never have thought of.

A member from the NDP recently mentioned a good example: the ice storm. That was not simply a two or three week event. I was in Quebec recently and felt how deeply that event from long ago had scarred the people. It was so traumatic in their lives. They will never forget that. It was not simply an overnight occurrence, a freak weather accident that had no longstanding effect. We need to develop modern methods to react quickly to such events.

There are of course natural disasters that we could not have predicted in the past. They are not changes, but they are things that we now are aware of, such as incoming meteors and earthquakes that we can now sense with certain machinery. Now we can be prepared for them and prevent much loss of life, loss of property and tragedy, if we have new reactions and new procedures based on modern systems.

There is also the whole area of disease. Some members have mentioned during the debate that this whole area is totally different from the way it was in the past. If Marco Polo had acquired some disease on his first trip to the Orient, by the time he got back either he or the disease would have died. There would not have been a quick transmission. Now people are flying all over the world every day and we get things like SARS and other epidemics that could be vast tragedies in the world, regardless of a border between Canada and the United States or in Europe or wherever.

New occasions teach new duties. We have to constantly modernize our emergency response procedures and, therefore, legislation and resources.

I wish to talk a bit about clause 5. The clause talks about developing joint plans with the United States and providing assistance in response to those plans. I think everyone would agree that this make obvious sense.

It is expected that an earthquake will strike either Vancouver or Seattle at some time in the future, on the Pacific rim of fire where earthquakes are more prevalent. There are many emergency responders very close by to whichever city would need response from another country. They could save lives, prevent tragedies and reduce suffering immensely. It would make no sense at all not to allow those people to help out in such a huge catastrophe. That is one of the provisions in clause 5.

Of course the same is true about Ontario, New York and Buffalo. There are huge populations right across our border with the United States. We would want to use all the emergency response and planning and make all the resources available to them to prevent suffering and the loss of human life and to deal with the situation.

I want to talk for a few minutes about a technical omission in the bill. It is related to the territories. Unfortunately, this is the fourth bill in a row for which I have had to stand up and give this speech. I have no idea why the Conservative government constantly wants to leave the territories out of Canada.

First of all, let me read for members the definition of “provincial emergency”, because I thought the government could have included the territories with the provinces. It is as follows:

“provincial emergency” means an emergency occurring in a province if the province or a local authority in the province has the primary responsibility for dealing with the emergency.

In the northern half of Canada, do we not have emergencies where the territorial governments have these same responsibilities? In Yukon, we have an area where a glacier periodically has closed off a river and dammed it up. Not that many decades ago, because of that, one of our major communities was 100 feet underwater. There is nothing to say that this type of occurrence could not happen again.

Also, we have an earthquake seismograph in the town of Haines Junction in a national park. Virtually every week there is seismic activity. Yukon is not that far from the Pacific rim of fire.

Yukon also has huge tracts of forests infested with the spruce beetle. Unfortunately, these forests are right beside the same town that could be underwater, but there could be huge forest fires with devastating effects.

Once again I note that there are all sorts of emergencies that could occur in the territories. The territories should be given the same respect and opportunities as the provinces. In fact, this could even be more serious for us in the sense that Yukon has fewer responders, fewer people and farther to go. It is even more difficult in some ways to deal with those emergencies although of course there are fewer people to deal with and solve the problem for.

I will move on to clause 3, which states:

among government institutions and in cooperation with the provinces and other entities.

Hopefully there will also be cooperation with the territories; we would not have cooperation with the territorial governments and an emergency response team with the territorial government. I know the bureaucrats in Yukon government. I have a very good relationship with their emergency response organizations. I am sure they would appreciate the same level of respect from the rest of Parliament.

I will now go to paragraph 4(1)(f), which states:

—and supporting the emergency management activities of the provinces—and through the provinces, those of local authorities;....

Once again, hopefully we would support the activities of the territories and, of course, the municipalities in the territories are created by the territorial governments, just like provincial governments. Therefore their local authorities would have a parallel acceptance.

Paragraph (g) reads:

establishing arrangements with each province whereby any consultation with the Lieutenant-Governor in Council....

Once again, it should be with any province or territory. We would have to change the words “Lieutenant-Governor in Council” to commissioner because the equal position in the territories is commissioner.

Paragraph (h) reads:

coordinating the provision of assistance to a province in respect of a provincial emergency, other than the provision of financial assistance....

Once again, there are territorial emergencies and they have departments to cover emergencies. Therefore, we want that to say “provincial and territorial”. I can see no reason why the territorial governments would not be covered since they have the same responsibility for the northern half of Canada.

Paragraph (i) reads:

providing assistance other than financial assistance to a province if the province requests it;

Hopefully, the territories that probably have even less tax raising powers and revenue raising ability would be able to request financial assistance from the federal government over and above the provinces.

Let us go to paragraph (j).

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to apologize to the hon. member for Yukon. I am seeking unanimous consent to revert back to presenting reports from committees and motions for the purpose of dealing with the 14th report of the procedure and House affairs committee.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Does the hon. member have the consent of the House to revert to presenting reports from committee?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from September 21 consideration of the motion that Bill C-12, An Act to provide for emergency management and to amend and repeal certain Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

When we last considered this item, the hon. member for Yukon had the floor and he has eight minutes remaining.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to continue my remarks on Bill C-12, An Act to provide for emergency management and to amend and repeal certain Acts.

Members may recall that in the first part of my speech I started out by saying that Liberals support the bill. It is just a reintroduction of a Liberal bill, with a few changes in the basis of the excellent work that we had done related to security after 9/11. We dedicated $9.5 billion on security. We created a department of public safety and emergency and established a national 24/7 government operations centre.

Then I talked about how we are in a new world now, a world that we have to change. We need bills like this to change emergency measures to keep up with a changing world, since 9/11, since the Montreal shootings, and climate changes. Then there are things like ice storms, dramatic hurricanes and tsunamis that we have had, potential meteorites, and diseases like SARS. It is very important that we change with the times and have administration chains to deal quickly with problems.

I also talked about how important it was to have coordinating efforts with the United States because in geographical disasters a border is artificial. We need the people along both sides of the border to have cogent plans to deal with emergencies quickly. Then I went on to talk about how the bill had neglected in certain instances the territorial governments.

I would like the people in the Northwest Territories, Yukon and Nunavut to know I am constantly standing up to ensure that they are included. If they have any other issues that they think have been left out, not included, or having problems, they should please contact me as the critic for the north.

This modern management of emergencies is related to an issue that is dear to my heart and I want to talk about it for a while. I am referring to search and rescue and the ability to have search and rescue planes placed north of 60.

Right now all our search and rescue planes are based along the border of Canada and the United States. Certainly, that is where our greatest population is and certainly, that is where the greatest number of incidents occur. However, that does not mean that we should ignore the north.

In fact, half the range of those planes is really not used. They are in a spot where half of the range is not used because half the range would be in the United States, to the south, and some would be out over the oceans, to the south. Whereas, if we had one or two or three, the northern half of the country would be covered. We had actually promised to put four planes north of 60.

Just because most incidents are in the south does not mean we ignore the north. For example, the vast majority of crime in this country is in the south. It does not mean we do not have RCMP in the north. It does a wonderful job in the territories. It does not mean we do not have doctors in the north; they do a wonderful job. It does not mean we do not have food stores in the north because there is a very small population. They all do a wonderful job. Therefore, it is very important that we protect those people.

In the south, arguments could be made that there are a lot more civilian resources available to search for someone in densely populated areas than in the north. In fact, in the north, an accident could be far more critical. We have thousands of flights going over the pole now and a vast increase of activities because of global warming.

The Prime Minister has talked about sovereignty in the north, which is a result of global warming. He should accept that. With all this activity going on an accident there could be far more dangerous and critical than one in the south. There is less civilian capability to get to people, drop supplies, drop something warm, and far more chance of dying of hypothermia either on land or in the water.

I definitely want to continue the argument that I have been making for a long time at the defence committee for search and rescue planes with reasonable coverage north of 60.

I can be reasonable in the sense that I know these are expensive and there is a whole array of services that go with them, mechanics, et cetera. I am not opposed to a compromise so that these planes could have dual functions because there are other military planes in the north that need to be replaced or other planes that are used for various purposes. I do not mind if we have a dual purpose plane in the north that can do search and rescue and can do these other functions. Therefore, northerners and people who are not Canadians but end up having an accident in the north would be far more protected.

I encourage everyone involved to support the contract which we approved in Parliament some three years ago and see to it that it is finally tendered and done so in a manner that will allow us to have search and rescue planes to cover and protect northerners, people in the territories, the same way they presently protect people in the provinces.

The next item I want to speak to is sort of an esoteric part of the bill. I do not think anyone has spoken to it. It would allow businesses to share information to protect critical infrastructure. In the new world, that I spoke about earlier in my speech yesterday, one of the items under attack is infrastructure. Infrastructure is absolutely critical to the smooth functioning of our society, to the health of the economy and the people, and we want to protect it.

A lot of the information that is required to protect that is in private hands. The bill would allow for the cooperation and coordination of businesses to provide that private information to the public sector, so that it can be included in the emergency plans in order for our emergency plans to be comprehensive, make sense and contain all the information necessary.

Some of that information businesses would not normally give because it is protected, confidential and could help their competitors or terrorists who want to attack them. Therefore, there is a provision in the bill that, under these circumstances when it makes sense, would protect information and use it for the purpose for which it is being shared, which is to protect during emergencies.

Finally, in my last minute I would like to talk about the ability the bill gives to the Minister of Public Safety to monitor, evaluate and coordinate federal plans. All the institutions and departments must have a plan, but the reason I strongly support this is that sometimes it falls between the cracks if we do not have someone overall in charge. I will give one example.

The Liberal government put in a policy called a rural lens which means everything that goes through the Government of Canada, every program and every new law, should be looked at through a rural lens. Deputy ministers are required to report every year on that rural lens on what success they have had in promoting things for rural Canada. The member from Prince Edward Island and myself have been great champions of this.

I have asked a number of times in committee and some of the deputy ministers did not even know about it or had no reports. That is why it is important in this bill that theMinister of Public Safety has an umbrella authority over the various plans from the federal departments to ensure they are good and that they work.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Yukon for his thoughtful remarks on Bill C-12.

One thing he raised was that in the north, and in fact much of the hinterland, people are faced with circumstances that we do not consider too much in urban Canada, and that is the threat of forest fires.

I know my friend is aware that I spent many years as a forest ranger in the Yukon territory. Our primary concern was fighting fires and fire management, but we also had a dual function as land use managers. The smaller communities would look to the forest service as their emergency measures operations leaders. It was really the only representation of that aspect of civil society to which they could look.

In a small community such as Dawson City where I lived, there was the school board, the mayor and city council, a couple of RCMP officers and the forest service. When it came to emergencies, or at least emergency measures preparations, people would look to the forest service as having the best capability of implementing whatever measures may be put in their emergency measures plan.

When my colleague mentions the need for more search and rescue, et cetera, one of the things I found useful in the development of those plans, and practising the constant evening rehearsals to be ready for emergency measures, was that we needed sometimes dual purpose functions, and we ran into jurisdictional difficulties.

Does the member see in the bill any opportunity to try to cut through the jurisdictional red tape so the emergency measures team could in fact use tools, airplanes, equipment and trucks that belong to some other jurisdiction without having to deal with red tape, protocol and stepping on the toes of other people from other levels, not of government but of civil society?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member mentioned that point. This is the intent of the bill. It is a good point to raise in committee, that organizations outside of government such as the firefighting volunteer groups are not specifically mentioned in the bill, but various orders of government are. As I mentioned, it is too bad that the territories were not mentioned because in Yukon forest firefighting is now under Yukon, so it would need that coordination.

In my earlier remarks yesterday, and maybe the member was not here, I mentioned that because of the spruce budworm and global warming, forest firefighting in Yukon has more potential for disaster than ever. We have a huge swath of forest right beside one of our communities that is like a tinderbox ready to burn. This would put that community, and maybe other communities, at risk.

I agree totally with the member that we need this coordination in governments, which is in the spirit of the bill, but maybe there should be references to other organizations. There are some references to local governments, but that should be made quite clear, including the territories.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear that the member for Yukon mentioned the rural lens.

I do not expect, and I will be speaking on it in a moment, that the Canadian government would use measures in the bill for alternative motives, but we have seen that happen in the United States. With the new regulations coming out under its inspection agency, the U.S. claims it is fighting bioterrorism and it is placing fees on agriculture products, animal and plant products. I believe it is $5.25 per truck crossing the border, $5.00 per passenger on planes, $566 for ships and then so much for a railway container.

It is really protectionism in the United States under the guise of security. It is going to cost $77 million and Canadians are going to pay it all. Yet the new government has failed to challenge those measures in the United States to anywhere near the extent it could. It relates in part to what the member has said about the rural lens.

Does the member see any difficulties in the bill where something similar could happen or does that just happen to the friends of the Prime Minister in the United States, who would impose those unnecessary measures on Canadians?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his remarks.

All members of Parliament should keep in mind that any time a bill comes up, these types of things may either inadvertently or purposely be included.

To give an example of what he is saying, there is a very broad reference to military in this bill, support for plans and our allies, and that is virtually all it says. It does not say what part in the world nor does it give any definitions of the circumstances. It is great that it is in the bill, but more clarity might lead to the intent and avoid the type of abuse that the member has suggested.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, previous speakers have opened the door on any number of interesting aspects of Bill C-12. We cannot look at the context of this actually quite thin and straightforward bill in isolation. By its very nature, it has broad, expansive implications into the very fabric of how we structure ourselves in many aspects of civil society, not the least of which is the point my colleague from Malpeque just made. I thank him for doing that because it segues nicely into some of the concerns and reservations I want to raise about the bill.

We have to use an abundance of caution and be ever vigilant that the things we do in the interests of national security do not trample and interfere on some of the very values by which we define ourselves as Canadians. We also have to be abundantly cautious and use great vigilance to ensure that those who would use the bill to advance other secondary objectives be cautioned now by astute members of Parliament, doing diligence in their study of the bill, that we will not tolerate this.

I want to stop short of impugning motives in the introduction of bills of this nature, but we can learn by example from other countries, certainly our neighbour to the south. I can say without any hesitation at all and without any fear of contradiction that the United States administration has used the national security crisis to achieve other secondary objectives, some of which have been punitive to Canada. I do not think that is telling stories out of school and it is not showing any disrespect to our American neighbours to point out that we are not idiots, we have noticed this.

My colleague pointed out some very helpful specifics in terms of levies and fees and stuff that are administered now to Canadian shippers as they export goods to the United States. An added burden is being put on them to meet the new standards put in place by our American neighbours, under the umbrella of national security, or fear of bioterrorism or any number of enabling themes and motifs they are using in those arguments. There are a number of examples that we could use.

We are very cognizant of personal freedoms and will not allow them to be violated, but let us be equally cautious that people are not using public fear to justify the unjustifiable in any other context. That would certainly apply to the U.S. experience of using the threat of bioterrorism to disadvantage Canadian exporters and essentially to put up what would otherwise be viewed as illegal tariffs and subject to trade sanctions or trade complaints being filed.

None of the parties that I have heard speak to the bill seem to find fault with the idea that emergency measures preparedness needs to be reviewed. The previous Liberal government in the previous Parliament had an almost identical bill, Bill C-78. With very minor tweaking and adjustments, we are seeing it reintroduced to Parliament today.

The times we are living in warrant greater scrutiny of our emergency measures preparedness. The jurisdictional question came up quite clearly in interventions from members of the Bloc. I think we can all agree, when it comes to personal safety and national safety, that there needs to be agreed upon crossover not to show disrespect for any jurisdictional boundaries, but to acknowledge that timeliness is of the essence when people are at risk or under some kind of natural or unnatural external threat.

I can speak from personal experience how, in the event of natural disasters, Canada is quite well served and quite well prepared. I will speak from personal experience in the Red River flood that affected my region as recently as 1997. I see a colleague here from the province of Manitoba from the government side. We can say, without doubt, that as we observed that freak of nature slowly inching toward us, pieces began to fall into place. I should remind people who were not there that the Red River was 50 miles wide. That is an unnatural circumstance for people. I am used to paddling on the Red River with my canoe. The Red River is usually not as far across as this chamber, so for it to be 50 miles wide and advancing relentlessly and steadily toward the city of Winnipeg, we were in a legitimate crisis in slow motion.

I suppose we could argue that perhaps we had the luxury of time to put together an effective emergency measures reaction. It was not like the ice storm that affected Ottawa where overnight the infrastructure, certainly the electrical infrastructure, of Ottawa collapsed. However, I can say with some sense of pride that the people of Ottawa had in place measures and circumstances that served the residents here very well too. I was a member of Parliament then and I watched how this city was able to react and absolutely minimize, not only the inconvenience, but the loss of life, the injury and the risk to services, to property and to people.

What I want to raise with the Red River flood, though, Mr. Speaker, if I could--I hope you feel it is in the context and order of the debate--is that there is a case to be made for collective, cooperative action in the preparation for and administration of emergency services. I cite as an example something that happened in the 1960s in Manitoba that could never happen today, and that is the digging of the Red River floodway, the largest engineering feat in history in terms of volume of earth moved, bigger than the digging of the Suez Canal. It was a public infrastructure initiative where, if we raised something of that scope and magnitude today, we would be laughed out of the room. People would say that we could not afford it, that it would be a waste of taxpayer money, that it would be a boondoggle. They would find 100 reasons to say why it should not be done and maybe they would say that we should let the private sector build it in a public-private partnership and maybe it could get done that way, but probably not because we are so timid now.

We are timid as rabbits when it comes to doing things like building a nation and building great projects. There is no collective vision and no national dream any more. That is the guts that it took. A Conservative premier, I will give him credit, named Duff Roblin simply would not listen to the naysayers and that investment, the largest infrastructure project in the nation's history and in the world at the time, has saved the city of Winnipeg, three, four and five times over. It cost hundreds of millions of dollars at a time when $100,000 meant something but it saved billions. It saved hundreds of thousands of homes and probably thousands of lives because somebody had the guts to show some real leadership, stand up to the naysayers and say that some things are important enough that we have to invest in the future.

To this day we invite Premier Roblin to the edge of the Red River floodway and collectively thank him for being that aggressive and that stubborn and not taking no for an answer. As we speak, that floodway is being widened. We are actually digging it deeper and wider because it is the best thing we ever did as Winnipeggers.

We cannot have enough emergency measure preparedness but it takes a collective wisdom and a collective political courage to implement that kind of collective action. I can just imagine the reaction of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation if we were to here with a proposal and said that we needed, for our own well-being collectively, to undertake an initiative the scope and scale of the Red River floodway. We would be laughed out of the room. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation would set up shop right outside of here and hold a press conference and ridicule us for being a tax and spend party or something. There is justification for that kind of thing when our national well-being is at stake.

I can say too, during the flood of the century in 1997, how heartened I was by not only the mobilization of the citizenship but the mobilization of the military for non-military purposes. The same training that goes into making great soldiers and an effective military unit is applied readily to emergencies such as forest fires, floods, et cetera. No one else has that capacity, whether it is the machinery, the engineering, the technology or the sheer manpower of a couple of thousand fit people who are used to working in a coordinated effort. That is a rare thing. Who else do we look to but the military when that kind of thing takes shape?

The only person who disappointed us was the prime minister of the day when he came to view the flood lines. We were all sandbagging into the middle of the night. The prime minister of the day made his obligatory visit and got his Guccis a little wet walking into some of the sandbag areas. Somebody gave him a sandbag and he said, “What am I supposed to do with this?”, and kind of turned and walked away. We were disappointed that the only person we could not get really interested in the initiative was in fact our own PM. The rest of the electorate was out there, the mayor of Winnipeg, the premier and all the MPs were on the sandbag lines, and I think citizens were glad to see that kind of effective mobilization.

The other thing I am proud of in the city of Winnipeg, in my home riding of Winnipeg Centre, is that it is home to the only level four virology laboratory in the country. We received this in kind of a backhanded way. Back in the mid-1980s, the Mulroney government gave a CF-18 contract to Montreal, even though Winnipeg had a far better bid and a far lower price. We had everything ready to go. It was an absolute slam dunk that the CF-18 contract would come to the people of Winnipeg. However, for political reasons, as happens so often, it had to go to the province of Quebec at a higher price. It was a bad deal for the taxpayer and certainly a slap in the face to western Canada.

I suppose as a booby prize, Jake Epp, the senior minister from Manitoba at the time, brought home the federal virology lab. Quebec received the billion dollar CF-18 contracts, maintaining our jets and promoting and advancing even more its aerospace industry, and we received a disease factory plunked down in a residential neighbourhood in the middle of my riding. We were not too appreciative at the time. It was a laboratory that the city of Ottawa turned down because it did not want ebola virus and every other disease in the country in its backyard, so we wound up with it.

In retrospect, we are delighted to have this level four virology lab and the international expertise that it brings to our community. However, we were concerned about the safety aspects. I can give an example of something that is in the context of an emergency. We were not so concerned about what happened in the laboratory and in the safety of handling the world's deadliest viruses in the context of the laboratory. I have toured the place. It has thick concrete walls and it is bombproof and bulletproof. However, what we questioned was the shipping and transporting of these deadly viruses from one place to the laboratory. That was the weak link in the chain. We were guaranteed this would be done with the utmost highest protocol, that Brinks trucks would be hired and they would travel in convoys, that there would be three of them and only one would be carrying the virus, so there would be decoys in case terrorists wanted to strike the one that was carrying the virus.

What happened was that as soon as our backs were turned, this was contracted out to FedEx. During a traffic accident on the corner of Logan and William where a FedEx truck ran into another car, what spilled out of the back of the van? It was a bunch of anthrax and Newcastle disease virus, which wipes out chicken populations immediately if it gets into the atmosphere.

Anthrax by FedEx is a far cry from Brinks trucks and decoys. I almost fell off my chair. I could not believe what a violation of trust this was. At the time I said, anthrax by FedEx, what is next, ebola virus by bicycle? That would be the only thing more ridiculous than anthrax by FedEx.

We were disappointed and let down in terms of emergency measures preparedness because that could have been a catastrophe. This level four laboratory is in the middle of a residential neighbourhood. It is not on the outskirts of town and it is not in an industrial park. As far as I am from you right now, Mr. Speaker, are occupied homes in a poor end of town. I guess that was some of the thought process, that it did not really matter that much because it was just in a poor end of town. It would not happen in Tuxedo, River Heights or some affluent end of town. They would not put up with a level four disease laboratory with guys shipping anthrax by FedEx but they did not seem to have any hesitation doing it in the middle of my riding, the poorest riding in Canada.

We are conscious of these things. It is a net benefit, I suppose, to the Health Sciences Centre campus that is in the heart of my riding and that this level four disease laboratory serves a national and international function in assessing and analyzing dangerous viruses, whether it is in animals or a threat to people. I should recognize and pay tribute to Dr. David Butler-Jones and Dr. Frank Plummer, the senior officials who run our level four laboratory in Winnipeg and my comments are in no way to show disrespect for the valuable work they do. I just wish they would tighten up their protocol for shipping their bugs around my city.

The last issue I would like to raise in terms of emergency measures and in the context of Bill C-12, which was also raised by my colleague from Yukon which was very helpful, is the issue of global warming. I hope the bill acts as the enabling legislation to allow senior ministers, no matter what their jurisdiction, to contemplate, prepare for and be seized of the issue of the consequences of global warming. On television the other day, I heard a climatologist say, with some sense of pride, that in the next year or two we would be able to sail the Northwest Passage uninterrupted with no icebreakers. He said that it would be open as a shipping lane and he cited the advantage to this.

I remind anyone who is thinking in those terms of the cautionary note of Tim Flannery, the world's leading authority on climate change, who was a guest at our convention in Quebec City not two weeks ago. He cited the fact that if we were ever to have the Northwest Passage open as a shipping lane, every other port in the world would be under four feet of water. He said that there would be no place for those ships to load and unload their product because we would be in a Noah's ark situation here. The world would be underwater and certainly coastal regions.

I raise that perhaps as the ultimate cautionary note as we enter into an analysis of our emergency readiness as a nation. Are we ready for this onslaught that we are bringing upon ourselves with climate change? What concrete steps are ministers of the Crown taking today to prepare ourselves for what could be a self-imposed Armageddon? I am not one of those to stand around with a sign saying “the end is near”, but I say to my colleagues and friends in the House of Commons that the end is near if we do not turn ourselves around and stop this looping effect, this compounding effect of global warming that we are doing to ourselves.

If there is any one single thing we need to do to prepare for emergencies, it is to prepare ourselves for this doom that will be upon us if we do not correct our practices, our man-made polluting of this planet to the point where it will not be habitable any more. We are soiling our own nest to the point where we will not be able to live on this planet and there is no amount of bills and legislation that we can pass that will turn that around without the political will of every minister, of everyone in authority at every level of government in the world in fact. If there has ever been an argument for world cooperation, it surely has to be to save the planet, and that transcends Bill C-12. That will need to be the motif that becomes a thread through all of our actions as elected officials.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Winnipeg talked about a lot of different issues and only a very few of those really refer to the bill itself.

The bill talks about increasing the cooperation between all jurisdictions in disasters. My hon. colleague made mention of the Red River flood in 1997. It was devastating for the province of Manitoba and for my riding. I was out sand bagging. I made sure I went along with our Canadian soldiers who were also sand bagging and helping the local residents and our province in protecting our assets. We are extremely grateful for that.

It is that type of cooperation among all jurisdictions, Manitoba, all provinces, the federal government and the municipalities, that made it happen.

In my riding just in the last two years we have had two disasters that required EMO services. We had a flash flood that went through Lester Beach, which was extremely devastating and completely unpredictable. There was no way we could have had any preventative measures in tact to prevent what happened. Cars were washed into the river and houses were lifted off their foundations and moved 20 feet or 30 feet.

This year a tornado went through Gull Lake and killed one lady. We had a lot of damage in the community. Houses were completely destroyed. Seasonal residences were completely demolished. We could not even make out what was there before.

Because of those situations we need to ensure that we strengthen the whole Emergency Measures Act. That is why I support the bill.

The member talked about the Red River floodway. The bill is also trying to address the whole issue of being preventative. He mentioned Duff Roblin, the Conservative premier of Manitoba. Back in the sixties he had the vision and the dream to build a giant ditch to divert water. I think only construction of the Panama Canal moved more earth than the Red River floodway in Manitoba to divert water around our capital region and protect the city.

There have been some problems with that, and we have an expansion going on right now. A lot of the negative impacts are happening in my riding. We might sacrifice the city of Selkirk and historic site of Lower Fort Garry because of not taking the extra preventive measures to ensure that we have riverbank stabilization down the entire river right out to the mouth of the Red River into Lake Winnipeg.

When he is talking with his NDP colleagues back at the provincial level in Manitoba, does he feel we need to ensure that we have preventative measures in place so we are not just dealing with mitigations and trying to address things after the fact, after the damage is done, like groundwater contamination, property damage and ongoing infrastructure damage, because of not having that foresightedness?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Selkirk—Interlake has a legitimate point. There is a cautionary tale for anyone who interferes with nature. The flow of a river is not something to be taken lightly. It can have adverse consequences that we might think we can control as engineers, carpenters and builders, but often we are powerless to stop. There is a legitimate caution that nothing we do should adversely affect those downstream.

That goes back as far as the Magna Carta. One of the very first things cited in any kind of written record about how we relate to each other and govern ourselves is the rights of those downstream. Thou shalt not do something that is going to affect the water rights of one's neighbour down the stream.

The city of Selkirk has a legitimate argument as do the people of Manitoba as the Governor of North Dakota seeks to divert Devils Lake through the interbasin transfer of water into the Red River system and to pollute our beloved great inland sea, Lake Winnipeg. That is worth noting in the House of Commons in the context of an emergency measures debate as well.

The state of North Dakota is acting like a rogue state. I think it is acting more like North Korea than North Dakota in its absolute intransigence to listen to the scientists, to listen to reason, to listen to the pleas of its neighbours to the north who have a legitimate grievance. It is not allowed to violate the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act just because it has a water problem in Devils Lake, North Dakota. That lake is full of invasive species that will get into this other whole drainage basin that flows up the Red River to Lake Winnipeg and into Hudson's Bay.

It is a catastrophe waiting to happen. It is a violation against nature. It is a crime against Mother Nature to divert water in this interbasin way. I hope our emergency measures team are ready to cope with this lack of sensitivity from our American neighbours to the south. It is a pressing problem that deserves the attention of the House. I know it has the attention of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and his counterpart in the United States, Condoleezza Rice, but we had it on the table for years.

I personally have gone to Washington with Lloyd Axworthy to appeal to American senators from those northern states and said, “Don't do this for heaven's sake. Don't commit this crime against nature”, and they continue to plough ahead with it. It is an emergency for the province of Manitoba.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Drummond.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I did not want to participate in this debate.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The member for Ottawa Centre, then.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre, has outlined for us what the parameters are when we are dealing with emergency preparedness.

When we dealt with the ice storm in Ottawa and Quebec as well, when I was volunteering to help out the army and others, one of the things that became crystal clear was that we relied upon the front line workers, the men and women, who are nurses, paramedics and people in our military, and we need to support them.

One area that concerns me greatly is the public health issue in emergency preparedness. We do not have enough public health nurses ready to go because we have abandoned public health. We need more capacity.

How can we better prepare ourselves in our communities by involving, training and building more nursing capacity?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians have been generally lucky that we have been relatively free of catastrophic events. I am 50 years old and very few events stand out like the Ottawa ice storm or the flood of the century in 1997 in Winnipeg.

I am concerned as well that perhaps we are not building a culture of preparedness and not preparing in anticipation of these events. We can be sure that as climate change becomes more and more a reality, radical climatic events are going to happen more frequently. The magnitude of the ice storm itself ground down a great city in a few short hours. We can be assured that there will be similar events all over the world on a more frequent basis. There is no way to ensure against that level of devastation, but we can prepare for the human effect, and that is workers on the ground, public health workers, people who are deputized to leap into action.

I am surprised we do not have the type of emergency measures preparation going on today like we did during the Cold War. Drills would be held now and then in classes and students would be told to dive under their desks. They were told what to do in the event of nuclear fallout.

We do not contemplate disaster and happily go along because we are a peaceful nation and blessed with very few natural catastrophic events in terms of earthquakes, floods, ice storms and hurricanes. Let us not kid ourselves, though. We are bringing this upon ourselves, and we will realize more of these events with a vengeance as climate change becomes more of a reality.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-12, which is an act to provide for emergency management. It is a very important bill.

In summary, the bill is designed to strengthen Canada's readiness to mitigate the impact of, prepare for, prevent and respond to all hazards. It really replaces the Emergency Preparedness Act of 1988 and is virtually identical to Bill C-78 introduced in 2005 by the previous government. Even though there is a new government in place, there is not much new. The Conservatives are still building on the good acts of the previous government. There are exceptions to that, such as where they sold out to big rail in terms of the Canada Transportation Act and they are selling out to big grain under the Canadian Wheat Board Act, but we will leave that for another day.

In short, the Liberal Party welcomes the government's reintroduction of the emergency management bill tabled by the Liberal government in November 2005. The introduction of the bill last year fulfilled a promise made in our national security policy of April 2004.

The act builds on the excellent Liberal record on security since 9/11: one, an investment of over $9.5 billion to strengthen national security, to improve emergency preparedness and to contribute to international security; two, the creation of the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness; and three, the establishment of a national 24-7 government operations centre to coordinate federal emergency responses.

Having been a former solicitor general after 9/11, I can certainly vouch for the measures that are taken in this bill. It is a strange thing about us as a country. Canada is a great country. We are tolerant people and we have many benefits, but sometimes we take safety and security a little too much for granted. The Red River floods were mentioned earlier. There is the odd hurricane in the country. In fact, during hurricane Juan in eastern Canada I lost two barn roofs in my own operation. But those events are small compared to what happens in other countries around the world. Then we add some of the terrorist actions that are happening. In fact, the President of Afghanistan spoke about some of those activities this morning.

We have to be vigilant on all fronts in terms of the natural hazards and in terms of the man-made hazards through terrorism and other means. As a former solicitor general I know from having seen things up close how important some of these measures that are proposed in this bill are to the safety, the security and the preparedness for emergency events within Canada.

It is important to review some of the activities that have taken place since 9/11. These measures add to that. I know the government opposite tends not to mention these, but it is important to see what we are building on as we provide greater safety and security for the country.

On October 3, 2003 the deputy prime minister of the day, John Manley, announced the smart border action plan. There was NAFTA a little earlier, but at that point in time he gave a fairly substantive report on it.

I want to outline for Canadians some of the things that have been done through that 30 point plan on which this bill actually builds. Canada and the United States had agreed to develop common standards for biometrics which both countries use and they had agreed to adopt interoperable and comparable technology to read those biometrics. That is still being worked on; progress is constantly being made in that area. There was the announcement of permanent resident cards, a single alternative inspection system, the NEXUS highway system at the border crossings.

The amount of trade that goes on between the United States and Canada is to the tune of between $1.6 billion to $2 billion a day. We saw what happened in the wake of 9/11 when the border system virtually shut down and how it affected both economies. It is important in what we do in terms of emergency preparedness and security measures, that that commercial activity is still able to flow and that residents of both countries can feel secure with those measures in place.

As I said in a question earlier, I am extremely disappointed by the action the United States has taken with the new inspection fees. It is really disguised protectionism under the guise of security. I may talk about that later in a little more depth.

Other measures were taken in the 30 point smart action plan. There was a refugee asylum processing system, a statement of mutual understanding which would allow countries to more effectively exchange information on immigration related issues. That is the way we should be moving, with a processing system that actually looks at the facts instead of the fiction that some congressmen and senators in the United States are talking about, such as putting up the towers as if there were a major immigration system coming from Canada. There is not. For whatever reason, some people around the President of the United States like to operate on the politics of fear and try to blame Canada as if we were part of the problem. We are not.

We have made major steps ahead, as I said, with the expenditure of $9.5 billion to ensure the security of our country, the security of our border and indeed, the security of North America.

There was agreement on a process of managing those refugees and asylum claims. We had improved a better visa policy coordination.

Point seven in the plan was air preclearance. Probably most people in the House have taken advantage of air preclearance at several airports within Canada and the United States. If we go through preclearance, it saves time, it is better for business, it is better for people doing commercial business and it is indeed secure.

We had worked on the advanced passenger information and passenger name record. I agree that is somewhat controversial, and the Minister of Transport certainly knows how controversial it is. I will state unequivocally that even though it is controversial, it is one of those areas we have to look at it in order to give the assurance of security.

I might just move aside from the 30 points for a minute and say that one of the greatest difficulties in my experience in this whole area of security is the balancing of civil liberties and the protection of security in a country. It is a difficult area. There always will be grey areas, but we have to find that balance and it is not always easy to do.

Point nine was the joint passenger analysis units.

We established stronger measures for maritime security and ferry terminals. I have had the opportunity to see some of those in action. Containers are passed through X-ray machines to ensure there is not material in those containers that would have an impact on the country.

We have moved toward compatible immigration databases, immigration officers overseas, international cooperation between Canada and the United States and other countries. We harmonized commercial processing in a number of areas. There is still a lot more work to be done but it was a key point at the time. That was trying to provide clearances away from the border which would give a greater measure of security.

We established a number of joint facilities, common customs data, container targeting at seaports, infrastructure improvements overall, better intelligence in terms of the transportation system, and better critical infrastructure protection.

The member for Edmonton Centre yesterday spoke on this whole area of infrastructure. We are not only talking about roads, highways, water and sewage. In this new era we are talking about communications and related areas and food security. All those infrastructure areas have to be protected in the kind of world we live in today.

Point 22 was better aviation security. We have succeeded in doing that.

Point 23 was integrated border and management enforcement teams. We called them IBETs. There were some 14 established across the country. I have seen them operation. People in Canada and the United States can have great confidence in how those IBETs work. They bring together a cross-section of law enforcement agencies, whether it is the RCMP, the Ontario Provincial Police, the New York State Police, marine police and so on. They communicate and coordinate in a fashion that will make a difference in terms of the protection of the country's security.

We had established joint enforcement coordination at a number of locations at a cross-border crime forum for the prevention of crimes and the protection of the security of the nation.

We moved ahead with integrated intelligence in areas that we called integrated national security enforcement teams, or INSETs, which I think moved a long way since 9/11. The security bodies, whether it be the CIA, CSIS and others, came together for coordination and cooperation.

I see that time is passing, so I will just mention the other points by name.

There was the agreement to continue cooperation in the removal of deportees; counter-terrorism legislation; freezing of terrorist assets; joint training and exercises between the two countries; biosecurity; and science and technology cooperation.

Those were some of the advances that have in fact been made by the previous government, an expenditure of $9.5 billion. This bill moves forward in some of those areas. The revised act grants new powers to the Minister of Public Safety to exercise national level leadership in emergency management in four areas.

First, coordinating federal responses to emergencies in Canada and the United States. It is extremely important in those areas on this continent that our ministers responsible act concisely and coordinate their efforts.

Second, establishing standardized elements for the Government of Canada in terms of emergency plans. As a country we need to know what our plan is before it happens. That is extremely important.

Third, monitoring and evaluating emergency management plans of federal institutions. If there was an incident in this country, that is absolutely necessary, whether it is a natural, man-made or terrorist act.

Fourth, enhancing cooperations with other jurisdictions through common standards and information sharing. We have made massive moves ahead in that area of cooperation and coordination.

I want to close though in terms of one of the areas that I am disappointed in, as I said earlier. We can see the measures that the Government of Canada has taken in our country and in coordination with other countries around the world, and especially in coordination and cooperation with the United States, to ensure that we live on a safe and secure North American continent.

Yet, the Americans have imposed these fees under the guise of security, which I think are protectionist measures. I am disappointed in that because when we look at the record, this country stands at the front of the line in terms of security and emergency preparedness. This bill will in fact assist in that regard and I support it.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. member]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)