The Canadian military will "support" the RCMP if protests at the G-8 summit erupt beyond police control, says federal Defence Minister Art Eggleton.
But the government's new anti-terrorism bill cannot be used to declare Kananaskis a military security zone.
"In Kananaskis, the RCMP are responsible for security. The Canadian Forces is in a support role. That means that the RCMP is in charge. We're only there in a complementary role to support them and their jurisdiction -- if needed," Eggleton said in a telephone interview from Ottawa.
The government introduced Bill C-55, a scaled-down anti-terrorism bill, on Monday in response to complaints from the Opposition, human rights groups and Liberal backbenchers that its plans threatened civil liberties. It replaces Bill C-42, proposed legislation introduced last November.
A significant change is the softening of a provision that allowed the government to designate any part of Canada a military security zone. The change responds to criticism that it gave the government power to bar protesters from events such as the G-8 summit in Kananaskis next month.
The zones are replaced in the new bill with smaller "controlled access military zones," which limit their use to protect soldiers and their equipment.
Tory Leader Joe Clark called Bill C-55 "a very offensive piece of legislation" and urged the government to repeal it because it would give individual cabinet ministers too much power over Canadians.
"C-55 will not be used in the case of Kananaskis. C-42 could have, even though it wasn't intended for that," said Eggleton.
"The previous bill did have this provision in it where the minister of defence could have designated the entire Kananaskis area, but that's not possible under this new legislation. The only thing that could be protected or cordoned off would be military equipment itself if it were stationary," said Eggleton.
Citing security reasons, the minister declined to elaborate on how many soldiers or what type of military equipment will be on hand at the G-8 summit, or if they even will.
The new bill ensures a military zone cannot be declared to protect a conference centre or the participants in the conference, said Eggleton.
"Those kinds of things were always covered under police provisions. Police can always put a cordon up around an area. In the previous bill, we would only have been given the authority to do the same thing the police have always been able to do, but people thought it could have been abused, it could have gone too far.
"I don't believe it would have, but there was a perception that it could have."
Critics argued the wording in the new bill is still so vague the government can declare areas of Canada off-limits if patrolled by soldiers.
"It doesn't change a thing," charged Canadian Alliance defence critic Leon Benoit.
"The way the government can create a security zone now is to send in the men or equipment. It's a very sneaky, backdoor way of doing this."
Eggleton said that is not the intention of the bill, which aims to protect against the "terrorist method of operation" that hunts for weaknesses.
"If a ship is visiting one of our ports, say Toronto or Montreal, where there's not a naval base . . . that's already protected and policed by military police. But if it went to a civilian dock, we could under this provision protect it.
"We could send military police out to protect the ship and the area right around the ship. We can't take for granted in this post-Sept. 11 world that there isn't going to be any threat to a visiting ship. It could be from the United States, the United Kingdom, France or whatever other country -- or it could be one of our own.
"So all we're saying is when any of our own military equipment is off of a base, or when any visiting military equipment is here such as a ship or maybe a cluster of planes on a civilian airport field, that we could put a cordon around them and protect them."
FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. NoNonsense English offers this material non-commercially for research and educational purposes. I believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner, i.e. the media service or newspaper which first published the article online and which is indicated at the top of the article unless otherwise specified.