ON NOVEMBER 28, at a press conference at the end of the federal-provincial conference of Justice ministers in Ottawa, Quebec’s Minister of Justice Paul Bégin and Minister of Public Security Serge Ménard said they are opposed to Article 84 of the Public Safety Act, Bill C-42, that gives the Minister of National Defence the power to establish “military security zones.” They said the text of the article is too vague and could lead to abuses. The bill gives “one person the authority to declare an entire territory a military zone,” said Ménard. “When you take into consideration the abuses of such powers towards Quebec in the past in the name of security, it appears unacceptable that such a power be granted to one person deciding alone, without any obligation to consult Quebec authorities,” Ménard continued. “It can give rise to a situation where the Quebec National Assembly, which, should we recall, is situated at less than 500 metres from the Citadel fortress, is placed under federally controlled military zones.”
In the section of Bill C-42 which deals with “military security zones” which can be established in cases of emergencies, an “emergency” is defined as applying to an “insurrection, riot, invasion, armed conflict or war, real or apprehended.” The bill will give the Minister of National Defence the power to establish the zones “if deemed necessary for international relations or defence or national security.” Ménard told reporters that the possibility that such measures would be used to place Quebec under military occupation in the eventuality of a winning referendum on sovereignty is real. He said Quebec’s right to self-determination was directly threatened.
TML Daily thinks this point is valid and beyond doubt. Furthermore, the argument applies to all the provinces which should all take a stand against the proposal to establish “military security zones” anywhere in Canada.
It should be kept in mind that with Bill C-42, the government is giving itself permanent emergency powers where it alone will determine what constitutes an “emergency.” It will do so on grounds of “national security” which, according to the arrangements it is putting in place, it does not have to explain have to anyone. It is a draconian power which tramples underfoot all present constitutional power-sharing arrangements, let alone demands by Canadians that sovereignty be vested in the citizenry, not the ruling political party.
Source: TML Daily, December 5, 2001 – No. 219